BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Further consideration of Bill, as amended, opposed and deferred until Tuesday 17 January (Standing Order No. 20).

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No.2) Bill [Lords] (By Order)
	 — 
	Transport for London (Supplemental Toll Provisions) Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Second Readings opposed and deferred until Tuesday 17 January (Standing Order No. 20).

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

Lobbying

Bill Esterson: What discussions he has had on the definition of lobbying.

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman will know that we plan to bring forward our proposals for consultation in the new year, and this will no doubt be one of the subjects on which we will seek and receive views.

Bill Esterson: Does the Minister agree that businesses in this country should be lobbying the Government to go back to the negotiating table in Europe to get what is best for British business, jobs and living standards?

Mark Harper: That was a very contrived question. Our proposals on lobbying are very sound. On the European question, I think that the general public agree with what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did. There is no conflict between standing up for Britain and ensuring that we are involved in every meeting in Europe and fighting for British interests. We saw the outcome of that in yesterday’s excellent statement on the Fisheries Council.

Jo Swinson: Section 8.16 of the 2005 ministerial code required Ministers to record specific details of meetings with outside interest groups, including lobbyists. Does the Minister agree that reinstating that requirement would be a positive move for lobbying transparency, and that it was a mistake for the then Prime Minister to get rid of it in 2007?

Mark Harper: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She will know that we have made some changes to the ministerial code. For example, when Ministers in this Government leave office, they will not be allowed to lobby the Government for two full years afterwards. That is a new proposal that was not in place under the previous Government. If it had been, they might not have had some of the problems that they did.

Wayne David: I note what the Minister says about the Government’s plans to bring forward proposals for a register of lobbyists, but I want to ask the Government whether they work to the Buddhist calendar. On 2 November, he stated that the Government would publish their proposals before the end of November. Can we take his announcement today any more seriously than that one, or should we take all Government announcements with a large pinch of seasonal salt?

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman and his party ought to be a little careful on this subject. We are not going to take any lessons from them, because they did absolutely nothing about this for 13 years. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last week, when we bring forward our proposals early in the new year, we will have done more on this in 18 months than the Labour Government did in 13 years.

James Gray: No one would disagree that there should be no place in this building for improper access or influence; that is obviously the case. Does the Minister agree, however, that there is a problem of definition? Perfectly legitimate charities and other organisations are lobbyists, even though they are not paid to lobby and do so on their own behalf. Will he therefore be careful about defining precisely what a lobbyist is, and take care not to throw the baby out with the bathwater?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Our constituents lobby us every day of the week about legitimate issues, for example. We must be careful to take these matters forward sensibly, which is why we are going to bring forward our proposals for consultation to ensure that we get this right and that we do not inadvertently stop our constituents and others raising important issues with us.

Electoral Registration (Armed Forces)

David Hamilton: What steps he is taking to ensure that armed forces personnel are registered for postal and proxy voting at the next general election as part of his plans for individual electoral registration.

Nicholas Clegg: We are committed to helping service personnel to register and cast their votes. Service voters who are on the register
	before the move to individual electoral registration will remain registered until their service declaration expires, up to five years later. We also plan to extend the administrative timetable for UK parliamentary elections, which means that there will be a lot more time for service voters to return postal votes from overseas. We will also make it easier for them to apply for a proxy vote if they are deployed at very short notice before an election.

David Hamilton: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that answer. The number of service personnel serving abroad who were registered to vote increased from about 36% in 2005 to 48% in 2008. At the last general election, in 2010, there were only 294 proxy votes and 240 postal votes from the 9,000 members of the armed forces based in Afghanistan. What is the Deputy Prime Minister going to do to ensure that the speed at which he is moving on this issue does not isolate our armed forces in Afghanistan?

Nicholas Clegg: First, let me pay tribute to the previous Government for the very good work done to help servicemen and women in Afghanistan to make sure that they can participate fully. There was a real step change there, and we have continued with that for the elections of May this year. Registration levels seem to be improving. A survey conducted last year by the Defence Analytical Services Agency indicates that 75% of service personnel are registered to vote, which is well up on the figures of a few years before. We are moving in the right direction, but we will, of course, continue—not least by taking the measures I mentioned—to improve it further.

Philip Hollobone: What plans does the Deputy Prime Minister have to extend the time between the close of nominations and polling day to enable long-distance postal voters, such as our loyal servicemen and women in the armed forces, to cast their ballot?

Nicholas Clegg: We are indeed lengthening the timetable for UK parliamentary elections from 17 days to 25 days, which gives us just over an extra week to allow people overseas—whether they be in the armed services or elsewhere—to return their postal votes in good time.

Electoral Register

Tom Blenkinsop: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the potential effects of an incomplete electoral register on tackling crime.

Nicholas Clegg: I have had no specific discussions with the Home Secretary on this issue. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are doing everything they possibly can to ensure that the register is as accurate and complete as possible, which will continue to deliver benefits—not just for elections, but in helping to tackle crime.

Tom Blenkinsop: Why is the Deputy Prime Minister making it easier for prisoners to vote, but harder for the police to track criminals on the outside by removing the civic duty to register?

Nicholas Clegg: We are not removing the civic duty, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows. It is not an offence at present not to register to vote. We are maintaining the offence that is on the statute book whereby there is an obligation for people to provide information about voters in their household. That is being kept intact. As to the hon. Gentleman’s first point about the link between the register and crime, the Credit Services Association recently supported the move towards individual electoral registration, saying:
	“We believe that the proposed approach will lead to a reduction in financial crime, in particular fraud. In our view any proposal that will result in a reduction of financial crime is to be welcomed.”

Mr Speaker: Mark Lancaster. Not here.

Electoral Participation

Andrew Selous: What steps he is taking to increase participation in elections by service and overseas voters.

Nicholas Clegg: As I mentioned, the Government have published draft legislative provisions to extend the timetable for UK parliamentary elections from 17 to 25 working days. As I said, that will have real benefits for overseas electors and service personnel stationed outside the United Kingdom. We are also looking specifically at the best way to make improvements to the current voting arrangements for service personnel serving overseas.

Andrew Selous: Those who are prepared to die for their country should be given every opportunity to decide who governs their country, so what proportion of service voters are now registered to vote in comparison with the population as a whole?

Nicholas Clegg: As I said, the latest figures taken last year by the Defence Analytical Services Agency indicate a sharp increase to 75% of service personnel now registered to vote. That is up from 69% in 2009 and 60% in 2005.

Kevan Jones: I am pleased that the Deputy Prime Minister recognises the efforts made by the previous Government to encourage servicemen and women to register to vote. What he should be looking at, however, is whether those people could vote by internet. Most have access to it—at Camp Bastion and other bases around the world—so this would increase participation.

Nicholas Clegg: It is always worth looking to see whether we could use or deploy e-voting. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, it poses some serious security issues. It has been looked at in the past and we will continue to look at it. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but most people who have looked at internet voting feel that there is a real issue about whether it can be done in a secure and safe way. As I say, we will continue to look at it.

Roger Williams: Gurkha soldiers have had their terms and conditions improved vastly in recent years, but while they fight and die for this country they do not have the opportunity to vote in our parliamentary elections. Will my right hon. Friend investigate whether this can be corrected?

Nicholas Clegg: Clearly the Gurkhas will enjoy the same right as everyone else who makes the United Kingdom their home to vote for Governments in this country.

Anne Begg: I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister is not tempted to do away with proxy votes, given that he is lengthening the time between the close of nominations and elections. It is not just servicemen or overseas voters but my constituents who work offshore for whom postal voting is not an option, and they really do need a proxy vote.

Nicholas Clegg: I strongly agree. In fact, we are seeking to accelerate the provision of proxy votes for those who are deployed briefly just before a general election, so that servicemen and women who are deployed at short notice are not caught out by the rules and can use proxy votes.

Lobbying

Jim Sheridan: What discussions he has had on the definition of lobbying.

Mark Harper: I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer to question 1.

Jim Sheridan: May I pump the Minister a little, and ask whether it is part of Government thinking to require companies to register the costs of lobbying in their annual accounts, either directly or indirectly?

Mark Harper: If I remember rightly, that was proposed by my Liberal Democrat colleagues when they were in opposition, and the entire parliamentary Labour party voted against it, including, I suspect, the hon. Gentleman. If he will be a little patient and wait for our proposals in the new year, he will be able to satiate his curiosity.

Anne McIntosh: I hope that, in defining lobbying, the Minister will recognise that it is a perfectly traditional means of trying to ensure that a good Bill is passed. Some of the worst Bills have been passed when both the main parties have agreed. Will the Minister also ensure that any lobbying by a particular trade union will fall within the definition?

Mark Harper: I am yet to present a Bill that has had the support of both the Government parties and the Opposition, and I look forward to the opportunity to do so. However, my hon. Friend has made an important point. Lobbying—in other words, the setting out of concerns by businesses, charities, and our constituents—is a perfectly sensible activity. Indeed, legislation is worse when we do not listen to the outside world, and we do not want to damage that position. I hope that when we present our consultation paper, my hon. Friend will
	find it acceptable. We look forward to what she, and other Members in all parts of the House, have to say about it.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gary Streeter is not here. I call Katy Clark.

Individual Electoral Registration

Katy Clark: What assessment he has made of the potential effects of the introduction of individual electoral registration on the 2015 boundary review.

Mark Harper: I do not expect our proposals for individual registration to have any effects. As I have said from the Dispatch Box on many occasions, we are as focused as ever on accuracy and completeness, and I therefore do not expect the new arrangement to cause any problems for the boundary review. We are working incredibly hard to ensure that the 2015 register will be in good shape.

Katy Clark: Surely the Minister accepts that the Electoral Commission’s finding that about 6 million people are missing from the register must cast doubt on the data that are being used for the boundary review.

Mark Harper: That study was, of course, paid for by the Government, because we wanted to find out what state the electoral register was in before introducing individual electoral registration. It suggests that those who complacently thought that the register was already in good shape may need to think about that a little more, and also that our proposals, which include data matching and improving registration, are urgently required and will make the register better.

Mr Speaker: Bob Blackman is not here. I call Dr John Pugh.

House of Lords Reform

John Pugh: What recent progress he has made on reforming the House of Lords; and if he will make a statement.

Nicholas Clegg: A Joint Committee of both Houses is currently scrutinising the Government’s White Paper and draft Bill, which we published last May. The Committee is making good progress, and today the other place is debating a motion proposing an extension enabling it to report by 27 March next year.

John Pugh: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that if we have an unreformed and larger House of Lords and a smaller House of Commons in 2015, with the payroll vote constituting a larger percentage, it will be a huge step backwards for democracy in this country? We cannot take an à la carte attitude to constitutional reform.

Nicholas Clegg: I do not think that there is anything à la carte about the White Paper and the draft Bill and the scrutiny to which they are being
	subjected by a Joint Committee. Indeed, I do not think that there is anything à la carte or arbitrary left in a debate that has been raging for more than 100 years. I think that it would be a big step forward for democracy if we were finally to secure elections to a Chamber which, let us remember, makes the laws of this land, but is as yet not directly legitimate and accountable, through the ballot box, to the people of this country.

Sadiq Khan: May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister for some clarity on his party’s views on House of Lords reform? If he is able in this Parliament to get his proposals through for a second Chamber that is 80% elected with peers serving one term of 15 years, will his party still want in a future Parliament to remove the remaining 20% of appointed peers and bishops so that we have a fully elected second Chamber?

Nicholas Clegg: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I and my party start from the simple principled point that, in common with many other bicameral systems around the world, it is sensible to have both Chambers directly legitimised by—

Sadiq Khan: Fully?

Nicholas Clegg: Yes, of course fully; I support a fully elected second Chamber. The right hon. Gentleman’s party achieved precisely 0% of election to the other Chamber. I modestly suggest that if we achieve 80%, that will be better than 0%.

Daniel Poulter: The Deputy Prime Minister will be aware that the greatest barrier to reform of the other place exists in the other place. Will he be prepared to use the Parliament Act, if necessary, to drive through this very important reform and to bring greater democratic accountability to the democratic process?

Nicholas Clegg: As the Prime Minister himself has said, the Government will support this Bill as they support any Bill. That is in the coalition agreement: there is an unambiguous commitment that we will pursue this Bill as forcefully as we can. That means that the Parliament Act would be invoked in the normal way, if it were to come to that, but I hope that it will not. I hope we will be able to build consensus across all parts of the House in favour of meaningful reform. That is precisely why the work of the Joint Committee, which will report by the end of March next year, is so important.

Natascha Engel: Is not the Deputy Prime Minister just rushing in again, rather than waiting for the House of Lords Joint Committee to report? He is already giving us his opinions on what he is going to be doing. Why does he not wait for the Joint Committee to publish its report before giving us his opinions on it?

Nicholas Clegg: I cannot hide my opinions about reform of the House of Lords. It has been debated for well over 100 years. We have been perfectly open about this. We have published a White Paper, which was generated in part by discussions involving input from all major parties in the House. We have left a
	number of options open in that White Paper, including whether we should have 100% or 80% directly elected and the precise method of election. I hope the Joint Committee will be able to shed some light on those issues when it reports at the end of March next year.

Topical Questions

Nigel Mills: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Nicholas Clegg: As Deputy Prime Minister, I support the Prime Minister on a full range of—[Laughter.]

Mr Speaker: Order. We all want to hear the answer.

Nicholas Clegg: As I was saying, I support the Prime Minister on a full range of Government policies and initiatives, and within Government I take special responsibility for this Government’s programme of political and constitutional reform.

Nigel Mills: Over the years, we have introduced more than 1,000 tax reliefs, ranging from the vital to the obscure. Why is the Deputy Prime Minister so opposed to tax relief that supports marriage?

Nicholas Clegg: My own view is reflected in the coalition agreement, where this issue is among a number of others on which the coalition parties make an explicit agreement to disagree. That is because of a philosophical difference. I believe the state should be cautious about seeking to use the tax system to encourage people to take what, at the end of the day, are very private and emotional decisions about whether or not they should get married.

Sadiq Khan: Mr Speaker:
	“we must do everything we can to avoid a great big split in the European Union…That’s bad for jobs and growth in this country.”
	That is what the Deputy Prime Minister said before the European summit. We now have a great split. Does he think the Prime Minister was right to put party interest before national interest?

Nicholas Clegg: I am not going to rake over the results of the summit. The crucial thing is what we do now as a country, and on that issue there is absolutely no difference between the Prime Minister and myself or the two coalition parties. We are totally committed to full engagement in the European Union. Why? Because, as some business leaders set out very clearly in a letter this morning in The  Daily  Telegraph, 3 million people’s jobs directly depend on our place in what remains the world’s largest borderless single market, in our European backyard.

Sadiq Khan: The Deputy Prime Minister cannot answer a simple, straightforward question. I will give him a chance again: does he think the Prime Minister was right?
	The Deputy Prime Minister has also said that the Prime Minister’s actions at the EU summit have left the UK in an “isolated position”. As you will be aware, Mr Speaker, the justification the Liberal Democrats
	give for propping up this Conservative-led Government is to act as a restraining influence. Well, they have failed on tuition fees, they have failed on legal aid, they have failed on the NHS, and now they have failed on Europe. Does the Deputy Prime Minister believe that the Prime Minister should re-enter negotiations and get a better deal for Britain? If he does, what is he doing about it?

Nicholas Clegg: The right hon. Gentleman refers to the reasons why this coalition Government were created—it was to clear up the mess that his party left behind. It is not easy, what we are doing, but it is right. At the beginning of this year, his party had nothing to say about the economy—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. The Deputy Prime Minister must, and will, be heard.

Nicholas Clegg: At the beginning of this year, the right hon. Gentleman’s party had nothing to say about the economy. At least they are consistent: they are completing this year with still nothing to say about how to save our economy.

Mr Speaker: I call Toby Perkins. [ Interruption. ]

Toby Perkins: I am here.

Mr Speaker: I do not usually fail to spot the hon. Gentleman, but there we go.

Toby Perkins: Members on both sides of the House are very concerned about the implications for local communities and community cohesion of the initial proposals from the Boundary Commission. Although I recognise the importance of getting the numbers between constituencies relatively similar, community cohesion is also really important. Will the Deputy Prime Minister reserve the right not to support the Boundary Commission proposals if they are considered against community—

Mr Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Nicholas Clegg: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the whole system has been devised so that it is not in the gift of politicians, still less the Government, to draw lines on the map to decide where these new boundaries are set; that is for the independent boundary commissions. There is a process of consultation and appeal, which is now ongoing. But I am glad he recognises that the principle is a perfectly valid one: that people’s votes should be worth the same weight and esteem, wherever they live in this country.

Duncan Hames: Wiltshire schools have long felt short-changed by funding allocations for education, so they will welcome the doubling of pupil premium moneys for our schools in Wiltshire to more than £5 million next year. Now that Labour councillors in Manchester have voted for the pupil premium to be scrapped, will the Deputy Prime Minister consider giving our schools next year some of the more than £80 million of pupil premium that their council has rejected?

Nicholas Clegg: The pupil premium, which by the end of this Parliament will be £2.5 billion of extra money to help schools that are educating children from the most challenging backgrounds, is a very powerful, progressive policy, and I am very proud that we have delivered it, as a coalition Government. We have been searching in vain for months to find out what the Labour party would actually cut in public expenditure. Now, we have the answer: Labour councillors want to cut the pupil premium that benefits some of the most deprived children in this country. That is progressive politics for you!

Mike Gapes: Eighteen months ago, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary went together to Germany, and they were met by the right-wing Liberal Foreign Minister of Germany, Guido Westerwelle, who was quoted as saying that he was pleased to meet his “closest friends” and “fabulous partners”. The German Foreign Minister was in Britain this week. Did he meet the Deputy Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary together here, and did they discuss whether they are still the closest friends and partners?

Nicholas Clegg: I did meet Guido Westerwelle, the German Foreign Minister, yesterday, as did the Foreign Secretary.

Mike Gapes: Separately or together?

Nicholas Clegg: The hon. Gentleman wants to know whether we met in the same room or not. Okay, we did not; we met separately. Hold the headlines, “Foreign Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister have separate meetings”. Honestly, he is really scraping the barrel. We all agreed, as I explained earlier to the over-excitable right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), that it was very important that Germany and Britain should work together on deepening and widening the single market, and on promoting competitiveness and growth, upon which the jobs of millions of people depend in this country and elsewhere in Europe.

Henry Smith: In the context of House of Lords reform, will the Deputy Prime Minister say whether consideration has been given to a form of representation for British overseas territories in a revised second Chamber?

Nicholas Clegg: This is not something that has been looked at as closely as my hon. Friend would perhaps wish. We have set out our ideas in the White Paper. As I said earlier, they are now being subject to scrutiny by the Joint Committee, and the Government will make their final views known shortly thereafter.

Ann McKechin: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that any future referendum held in the United Kingdom or in any part of it should be carried out under the supervision of the Electoral Commission? If so, what is he going to do to ensure that?

Nicholas Clegg: Clearly, any referendum needs to be held in a way that enjoys public trust and is fair and objective, on whatever subject and in whatever part of the United Kingdom.

Graham Evans: Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in welcoming the agreement between the Government and the trade unions on public sector pensions? It shows that the Government have been prepared to listen and negotiate successfully with trade unions to get a deal that is fair for everyone?

Nicholas Clegg: My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will be giving a statement on this matter immediately after Deputy Prime Minister’s questions. I am very pleased that a heads of agreement has been reached between the Government and trade unions under all four schemes, not only because it ensures the Government’s objective of putting public sector pensions on to a financially sustainable footing, but, much more importantly, because it means that millions of people working in the public services, whether in our schools, in our hospitals or in local government, will now be assured, at a time of great uncertainty, that they will have among the very best pensions in this country for years and years to come.

Alun Michael: I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister about his new year’s resolutions. The Leader of the House has reminded all Ministers of the following:
	“When Parliament is in session the most important announcements of Government policy should be made, in the first instance, to Parliament.”—[Official Report, 5 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 73.]
	Given that, and given that the Deputy Prime Minister is one of the worst offenders, will he make it his new year’s resolution to behave himself in future?

Nicholas Clegg: I do not need a new year’s resolution to be reminded that it is important to behave oneself at all times.

Simon Hart: Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that if charities are to be covered by the register of lobbyists, their donors will be properly protected, because many give anonymously for very good reason?

Nicholas Clegg: As the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) explained earlier, the consultation will be published in the new year. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) will find satisfactory answers to his questions in the course of that consultation.

Karen Buck: Returning to the issue of electoral registration, does the Deputy Prime Minister believe that the proportion of the population registered to vote will be as high or higher at the end of the individual registration process as it is now?

Nicholas Clegg: Of course we will work very hard to make sure that that is the case. The hon. Lady will know—this is a source of concern for everybody—that, because of research that the Government commissioned from the Electoral Commission, the latest statistics show that about 85% to 87% of people were registered on the electoral register as of last December, which compares with about 93% to 95% 10 years earlier, in 2000. So something went dramatically wrong in the last decade when her party was in government; more and more people fell off the register. Our register is now roughly at the same level of completeness as that in Northern Ireland, which is why we must all work together to make sure that we get the details on individual electoral registration right.

Peter Bone: I wish the Deputy Prime Minister a merry Christmas, but if the Prime Minister was killed in a terrorist attack, who would take charge of the Government? Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that it would not be him, as he leads a party that has less support than the UK Independence party?

Nicholas Clegg: I receive his season’s greetings in the spirit in which they were intended. As he knows, appropriate arrangements would be made in that very unfortunate event. I must say, however, that his morbid fascination with the premature death of his own party leader is a subject not for me, but for the Chief Whip.

Ian Murray: Senior high school pupils have just three and a half weeks remaining to submit their applications for university. Does the Deputy Prime Minister think that applications will rise or decrease, given his broken promise on introducing £9,000 tuition fees? What impact does he think that will have on social mobility?

Nicholas Clegg: What I, of course, hope is that as people focus on the reality and substance of the new system rather than the misleading polemic about it, they will come to appreciate that at the moment thousands of students on part-time courses, under the system introduced by the hon. Gentleman’s Government, pay fees as students whereas under the new system no student will pay a penny of fees at all while they are studying at university. The method of repayment, which is in effect a form of time-limited graduate tax, is more progressive, not less, than the more regressive system that it seeks to replace.

Bob Russell: According to The Mail on Sunday, MPs are on day five of our holiday. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the statutory register of lobbyists ought to include a strict overview of a very shadowy organisation that puts itself forward as the TaxPayers Alliance?

Nicholas Clegg: My experience is that one should not believe much that one reads in the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday. The key point is that the consultation on the register of lobbyists will be issued in the new year, and will seek to define what we mean by lobbyists and the rules that will then be applied evenly to all kinds of lobbyists.

Mark Lazarowicz: We understand that the Deputy Prime Minister has been given responsibility by the Prime Minister for rebuilding bridges with our European partners. Will he tell the House how he intends to go about fulfilling that responsibility?

Nicholas Clegg: I can tell the hon. Gentleman one way in which I think it is incredibly important that we as a country should show leadership. On 27 January, there will be a European Union summit of all European Union countries aimed precisely at, in my view, the most important issue of all, which is how we boost competitiveness and growth within the eurozone and across the European continent. We, as a coalition Government, will come to that summit with some bold ideas about how we can increase growth, increase competitiveness and increase employment across the European Union and—yes—we will stay until the end.

Andrew Turner: In September last year, the right hon. Gentleman told the House:
	“We promised a new politics. Today is the day we must begin to deliver on that promise…We must put people back in charge.”—[Official Report, 6 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 44.]
	Why was that true for the doomed referendum on the alternative vote but not for the public’s view on Britain’s relationship with the EU?

Nicholas Clegg: As he knows, we have legislated to make it quite clear—the Foreign Secretary has pioneered and led on this legislation—that if there were to be a major transfer of power from this House to Brussels and from the UK to the EU, there should absolutely be a referendum. We are the first Government to have guaranteed to the British people that if we give up more power to the EU, they will have their say. I do not think we could be more crystal clear than that.

Mr Speaker: I call Mark Tami. He is not here.

Jack Straw: The Deputy Prime Minister said earlier that there was no criminal sanction on individuals if they failed to register to vote. The only reason that is so is that the obligation rests on the householder, on whom there is a criminal sanction. Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that as we move towards individual registration, Ministers must reconsider the proposal to allow opting out without any criminal sanction whatsoever?

Nicholas Clegg: I made it clear to the House on a previous occasion that we accept the arguments against providing an opt-out, and we will reflect that in the final legislation. On the quite tangled issue of what is, and what is not, an offence, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right that at the moment the offence applies not to registration, but to the provision of information on behalf of a household—in other words, to the obligation to provide information about other people in the household. It is not an offence at the moment not to register. He makes a valid point that is a valid subject for debate, and it was raised by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: under individual electoral registration, the obligation clearly falls more squarely on the individual, rather than on the so-called head of the household. We
	think that we need to proceed very carefully when it comes to creating new offences in this area, but we are, of course, prepared to listen, and will continue to do so.

Martin Horwood: Will the Deputy Prime Minister welcome the remarks made by our fellow member of the European Liberal Democrats, Herr Westerwelle, who said that Britain would still be welcome at the very heart of European economic decision making, and that some of the concerns that we raised at the Brussels summit could still be addressed?

Nicholas Clegg: I strongly agree that the decisions taken at last week’s summit were, at the end of the day, all about the fiscal and budgetary rules that accompany a country’s membership of a currency union, but that does not, and will not, exclude our country from having the ability to continue not only to participate in, but to play a leading role in shaping policy and debates on the wider economic reform of the European Union as a whole. That is what we intend to show in the weeks and months ahead.

Barry Sheerman: What will the Deputy Prime Minister say over the Christmas period—I hope that he has a very good Christmas—about the many people in our country who are unemployed? A million young people, and many thousands of young graduates, are unemployed. What new thing can he whisper into the Prime Minister’s ear so that we get this sorted?

Nicholas Clegg: First, I hope that people will be increasingly informed about the details of the youth contract, which will start in April next year—a new billion-pound programme that will provide 250,000 work experience places to any 18 to 24-year-olds who want to take part in a work placement scheme. It will also provide a new subsidy, worth about half the basic wage, to thousands of young people who are seeking employment. The key thing is that from April next year, under the youth contract, every single 18 to 24-year-old who cannot find work will have the opportunity to earn or learn.

Martin Vickers: May I return the Deputy Prime Minister to the issue of Lords reform? Like him, I support a 100% elected House. Often, when I read the deliberations of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform, I am concerned that there is a very negative view coming forward from a variety of Members. Does he have any view on the fact that a consensus is perhaps emerging, which might speed the passage of legislation?

Nicholas Clegg: I cannot find my notes on the latest social attitudes survey, which was published recently, but in it, public opinion was very clear: only 6% of the members of the British public surveyed supported the status quo—an unelected House of Lords. The vast majority wanted the House of Lords to be fully elected, partially elected, or even abolished. As for those who say that the issue is a minority distraction, I totally accept that there are many more important things weighing on people’s minds at the moment—not least jobs, unemployment, and growth in our economy,
	which remains our absolute priority—but the vast majority of people, when they stop and think about it, want a reformed House of Lords.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

The Attorney-General was asked—

European Court of Human Rights

Jeremy Corbyn: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Justice on reform of the European Court of Human Rights.

Dominic Grieve: I have regular discussions with the Justice Secretary, during which we talk about a large number of issues of concern to both of us, including the reform of the European Court of Human Rights.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Attorney-General agree that the European Court of Human Rights and the European convention on human rights are very important safeguards of the rights and liberties of people all over the Council of Europe area, and that any diminution of British participation or support, or acceptance of the Court’s rulings, would be damaging to the human rights of people in this country and would, of course, diminish the value of the Court, which is one of the great achievements of post-war Europe?

Dominic Grieve: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that both the Court and the convention are of great importance to the United Kingdom, and I also agree that it is important that the United Kingdom should play a full part in the work of the convention and the work of the Court. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we currently have the chairmanship of the Council of Europe, and during that time we are seeking to take forward and implement a reform programme for the Court which will enhance its efficiency and effectiveness and particularly enable it to address the vast backlog of cases that it is facing.

Alan Beith: Will Ministers seek to make allowances for Council of Europe members with strong legal traditions to ensure that the Court is an effective functioning court in which gross abuses of human rights do not wait in long queues behind cases that do not raise such important general principles?

Dominic Grieve: Yes, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about what we should be seeking to achieve. I can assure him that in trying to achieve our aims in the course of our chairmanship, we are looking very much to diplomatic initiatives which will bring us together with other partner states in carrying this agenda forward. We certainly cannot do it on our own, and the success of our initiative is entirely dependent on taking the other member states with us. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the backlog of the Court is a serious issue. It means that people are waiting years simply to receive a five-line letter saying that their claim
	is non-admissible. That is deeply unsatisfactory, and at the same time admissible claims are taking a very long time to be heard.

Denis MacShane: I wish Ministers well in their work in trying to reform the Court, but is it not a fact that more than 100,000 of the backlog cases come from one country, Russia, because there is no rule of law and no confidence in courts there at all? So has the time come to consider seriously whether we should ask Russia to leave the Council of Europe until such time as its domestic legislation meets some of the minimal obligations of membership?

Dominic Grieve: Membership of the Council of Europe and whether a country is excluded is not a matter for the United Kingdom on its own. The object of the convention is to improve standards throughout member states which are signatories. In fairness, the right hon. Gentleman may well accept that despite difficulties in many areas and with certain countries, standards are progressively being raised. Whether the backlog coming from Russia is quite as high as the right hon. Gentleman says I am not sure, but I think we can say that Russia makes a substantial contribution to the number of pending cases.

Stephen Phillips: The current backlog stands at something of the order of 165,000 cases, and 127,000 of those, as I understand it, come from Russia. Given the proposals from the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Justice Secretary for dealing with the reforms to the European Court, can he give the House some idea of how long that backlog will take to deal with?

Dominic Grieve: Much depends on the outcome of the reform package that we might be able to implement. There are a number of things that need to be done. First, a very large number of those cases among the total of 165,000 are non-admissible. It is a question of processing them so that the individuals concerned can be told that their cases cannot be heard and the reasons for that. When it comes to the admissible caseload, the issue for the future—clearly, we have to clear the backlog—centres on subsidiarity and the extent to which the Court relies on national courts which are correctly implementing the convention to provide the solutions. This is one of the challenges, and in doing that we also have to recognise that for many countries the right of individual petition is very important.

Corporate Deferred Prosecution Arrangements

Nicholas Dakin: What discussions he has had with the director of the Serious Fraud Office on the potential benefits of introducing corporate deferred prosecution agreements.

Dominic Grieve: I have had a number of discussions with the director of the Serious Fraud Office about the potential benefits of introducing corporate deferred prosecution agreements. A great deal of very positive progress on this ongoing work has occurred in the past few months among the Law Officers Department and also the Ministry of Justice.

Nicholas Dakin: Will the Government’s proposals apply to individuals as well as to corporate bodies?

Dominic Grieve: Deferred prosecution arrangements can apply only in the case of corporate bodies.

Economic Crime

Luciana Berger: What discussions he has had with the director of the Serious Fraud Office on the need for further legislation to address economic crime.

Dominic Grieve: I hold regular meetings with the director of the Serious Fraud Office where we discuss all aspects of the SFO’s work, including the need for further legislation to address economic crime, such as on deferred prosecution agreements.

Luciana Berger: I wonder whether the Attorney-General has read the speech given by the director of the Serious Fraud Office, Richard Alderman, to University college London? In that speech he said:
	“One suggestion that I have is whether the time has come for us to recognise that recklessly running a financial institution may be a ground for criminal liability.”?
	Does the Attorney-General agree with him?

Dominic Grieve: As the hon. Lady will be aware, under the Bribery Act 2010, for example, the reckless running of a financial institution can already constitute a criminal offence. Whether that should be extended further in respect of corporations is a matter that the Government would have to consider carefully, as would the House.

Richard Fuller: The Attorney-General might be aware that one of the areas of economic crime where legislation might be lacking relates to the financial crisis. Will he advise the House on whether his conversations have included or will include the potential for investigation of the tax affairs of chief executives and directors of failed financial institutions?

Dominic Grieve: That would normally be a matter for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, not the Serious Fraud Office. However, the position of any prosecutorial authority is clear: if there is evidence of criminal conduct, it is in the public interest that it should be stopped and that those engaged in it should be punished if found guilty.

Katy Clark: If the Attorney-General has not already done so, will he discuss with the Serious Fraud Office the possibility of bringing prosecutions arising out of the collapse of Farepak five years ago, when 120,000 people lost £38 million? If that is not possible, will he see whether it is possible to make legislative change to ensure that it does not happen again?

Dominic Grieve: Such legislative change is a matter for another Government Department. On the question of prosecutions, I am not in a position to comment on an individual case. If the hon. Lady wishes
	to bring further details to my attention, I will certainly ensure that they are passed to the director of the Serious Fraud Office.

Philip Hollobone: Is my right hon. and learned Friend surprised and/or disappointed that there has not been a series of prosecutions for fraud of bankers following the recent financial crisis?

Dominic Grieve: If a matter that requires investigation is brought to my attention and to the attention of the Serious Fraud Office, the Serious Fraud Office or other prosecutorial authorities will investigate it. The fact that there may have been a financial collapse does not necessarily mean that criminal offences have been committed.

Kelvin Hopkins: Tax evasion and tax fraud cost the Exchequer billions every year. If the Government are serious about reducing the deficit, would they not do better by chasing the tax evaders and tax fraudsters, rather than sacking public service workers and cutting public services?

Dominic Grieve: If I may say so, that is rather a long way from the Serious Fraud Office. If he wants the statistics on the pursuit of tax evasion, I would be happy to provide them and write to him about it.

Undercover Police Operations

Toby Perkins: What plans he has to conduct a review on the disclosure of evidence obtained through undercover police operations.

Dominic Grieve: I have no plans to conduct such a review. The Director of Public Prosecutions is taking action to improve how the Crown Prosecution Service deals with cases of this kind following the recent independent inquiry by the right hon. Sir Christopher Rose into the Radcliffe-on-Soar power station protest cases.

Toby Perkins: Has the Attorney-General made any progress in drawing up a memorandum of understanding for the sharing of information about the authorisation and activity of an undercover officer between the Crown Prosecution Service and the police?

Dominic Grieve: The Director of Public Prosecutions has agreed to adopt the recommendations made following the recent independent inquiry by Sir Christopher Rose, which state that explicit guidance should be included in a prosecution team disclosure manual. The DPP has also confirmed that specific training on the proper handling of cases involving undercover officers will be given to all senior lawyers in the Crown Prosecution Service’s central casework division and complex casework units and to the chief Crown prosecutors and any CPS staff who chair case management panels. Relevant guidance is already available to CPS lawyers on their obligations under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 and joint working will take place with the police to ensure that everyone understands where their responsibilities lie in the matter.

Robert Buckland: On the issue of disclosure, will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that he or the CPS thoroughly look into the circumstances in which a major and costly criminal trial involving allegations of police corruption collapsed recently in the Crown court at Swansea in order to ensure that lessons can be learned so that such mistakes relating to disclosure are not made again?

Dominic Grieve: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Director of Public Prosecutions takes the collapse of that case very seriously, indeed, and there will be internal inquiries and, I am sure, inquiries by the police into why it took place and the lessons that need to be learned from it. It is of course worth bearing in mind that, in terms of its history, it is very much a historic case, but that is no reason for any complacency about the lessons that we might be able to learn for the future.

Babar Ahmad

Caroline Lucas: What recent discussions he has had with the Crown Prosecution Service on the case of Babar Ahmad.

Dominic Grieve: I have had no recent discussion with the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to that matter.

Caroline Lucas: I should really like to understand what happened to the evidence in the Babar Ahmad case and, specifically, why the CPS apparently gave it directly to the United States without considering it first. Ministers have refused my written question on the matter, saying that it would “prejudice…proceedings”, so will the Attorney-General explain why and tell us what bilateral agreements are in place to allow evidence gathered by UK police about crimes alleged to have been committed in the UK to be provided to the US authorities in cases considered for trial in the US, such as that of Babar Ahmad?

Dominic Grieve: As the hon. Lady will appreciate, the case is live, and that is the reason—I have no doubt—why the CPS has been guarded about any response that it can give to her. She has raised a number of very specific questions, however, and I respectfully suggest that the best thing to do is for me to write to her and to try to answer the specific matters that she raised at the end of her question.

Tom Brake: What role can the Attorney-General and the Government play in ensuring that there are no more Babar Ahmad cases?

Dominic Grieve: I have to try to work out where the right hon. Gentleman’s question is coming from, but the main complaint about the Babar Ahmad case is the length of time that it is taking. As he will be aware, proceedings started on 5 August 2004, and in this country proceedings, including the refusal of leave to appeal to the House of Lords, were completed on 6 June 2007. The problems and delays since then are in fact due to the European Court of Human Rights, and that ties in with my answers to earlier questions about the inordinate length of time that it takes to bring such
	cases to the European Court of Human Rights—with consequences, in the case of Babar Ahmad, that are plainly undesirable.

Emily Thornberry: The Attorney-General may have read on 11 December in The Sunday Times, as I did with some interest, that the Government will be
	“asking British magistrates to examine detailed evidence involved in each case”
	and bringing forward plans to allow judges
	“to order a trial in Britain if they considered it would serve justice better.”
	Given that the House is committed to reforming extradition, are those the sort of changes that we are to expect, and when are we going to hear about them officially?

Dominic Grieve: As the hon. Lady appreciates, the Home Office leads on the question of extradition. I indicated when I last took questions that the Government take the view that, first, they need to study the Scott Baker report, which they are doing, and then they will come to the House with proposals. I hope that that will be as soon as possible. In the meantime, I suggest to her that speculation in The Sunday Times is not always the best indication of Government policy.

Domestic Violence (Legal Aid)

Lilian Greenwood: What assessment he has made of the potential effects on prosecution rates of planned changes to legal aid for victims of domestic violence.

Dominic Grieve: I have not made any assessment of the potential effects on prosecution rates of any planned changes to legal aid.

Lilian Greenwood: Does the Attorney-General agree with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) that a woman who has reliable eye witnesses, police and medical evidence, photos of injuries, has fled to a refuge and has a partner on a perpetrator programme should not receive civil legal aid to help bring her abuser to justice? If not, what will the Attorney-General do about it?

Dominic Grieve: My responsibility is the superintendence of the Crown Prosecution Service for prosecuting those who are guilty of domestic violence, and the question of civil legal aid does not come into it one way or another.

Amber Rudd: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Government intend to waive the financial eligibility limits in cases whereby a person applies for an order for protection against domestic violence, such as a non-molestation or occupation order?

Dominic Grieve: There again, sadly, I am afraid that I have to say to my hon. Friend that she has to direct that question to Ministers in the Ministry of Justice. I do not have a responsibility for civil legal aid.

Fiona Mactaggart: In view of the anxiety that there will be fewer prosecutions of people responsible for domestic violence as a result of these changes, will the Attorney-General agree to report to the House, a year after the changes have come in, on the number of prosecutions before and after the changes?

Dominic Grieve: I appreciate the hon. Lady’s point, which is an important one. It is the view, and certainly the policy, of the Crown Prosecution Service that it will continue to prosecute cases of domestic violence and to give them a high priority, as I have said in this House on several occasions before. I would be very concerned if any of the other changes taking place in civil legal aid were to have an impact on that, but I have no reason to suppose from my discussions with the Director of Public Prosecutions that that is the case. The emphasis on prosecuting domestic violence remains a top priority for the Crown Prosecution Service.

Peter Bone: Many of the victims of domestic violence have been trafficked into this country for domestic servitude. What is the Government’s view on providing legal aid to victims of human trafficking?

Dominic Grieve: In so far as somebody may be a victim, they do not need legal aid. My hon. Friend will be aware that for victims of human trafficking who, in the course of human trafficking, may have technically committed offences, there is a protocol in place to ensure that they should not be prosecuted without very good reason. From that point of view, I do not see, in terms of my responsibilities for criminal justice, that their needing legal aid as victims comes into it.

Specialist Domestic Violence Courts

Roberta Blackman-Woods: What recent assessment he has made of the effects on prosecution rates of specialist domestic violence courts.

Dominic Grieve: Evaluations of specialist domestic violence courts in 2005 and in 2008 clearly demonstrated that SDVCs involving specialist domestic violence support services have contributed to improving prosecution rates as well as safety for domestic violence victims. There have been no further assessments since 2008.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: County Durham achieved specialist domestic violence court status in 2006, since when there has been a huge increase in the number of successful prosecutions for domestic violence. These courts have not only brought more perpetrators to justice but have achieved more appropriate sentencing. What guarantee can the Attorney-General give that those very positive outcomes will not be put at risk by cuts to the court services?

Dominic Grieve: First, I entirely agree with everything the hon. Lady said. I pay tribute to the previous Government for the emphasis that was placed on this area when the SDVC system was set up. Although there is a court rationalisation programme that will
	impact on SDVC provision in 21 court houses in 22 systems, all courts affected have received guidance and support to ensure a smooth transition so that the revised courts will be able to provide the same quality of service. That is a commitment that the DPP and the CPS take extremely seriously. I very much hope that although some courts will have to close, the quality of service that is available at the courts that are open and to which transfers of the work are made remains of the highest quality.

Police Charging Responsibilities

Graham Jones: What charging responsibilities have been transferred to the police from the Crown Prosecution Service.

Yasmin Qureshi: Whether the Crown Prosecution Service plans to evaluate the effects of the transfer of responsibility for charging from the CPS to the police.

Dominic Grieve: The transfer of charges from the Crown Prosecution Service to the police under the fourth edition of the DPP’s guidance on charging was completed in June 2011. The following charging responsibilities have now been transferred to the police from the Crown Prosecution Service: summary-only matters where a not guilty plea is anticipated; criminal damage offences under £5,000 where a not guilty plea is anticipated and can be tried summarily; and Fraud Act 2006 and handling offences where a guilty plea is anticipated. There are certain exceptions that must continue to be referred to the CPS, which is currently undertaking an evaluation of the transfer that is expected to be completed early in 2012.

Graham Jones: Is the main reason for transferring the charging responsibility to save money, and how much money does the CPS expect to save?

Dominic Grieve: No, it is not to save money. It was a question of whether the system could be operated more efficiently. Some anxiety was expressed when the pilots were commenced, but the evidence from the Crown Prosecution Service has overwhelmingly been that the system is working well. For that reason, we are happy to consider, on a pragmatic basis, rolling it out further. Ultimately, whatever charging decision is made, decisions on prosecution will remain with the CPS.

Yasmin Qureshi: Before I ask my question, I should declare that I was employed by the Crown Prosecution Service many years ago, that I have been instructed by the CPS as an independent barrister and that I have a family member who works for the CPS. In my area, Greater Manchester police are closing their files management unit, which prepares files for the CPS, so that the officers can be put on the beat. Coupled with the devolved powers to police officers, that has led to a deterioration in the quality of the files that are sent by the police to the CPS. Because of this money saving by the police, the CPS has ended up spending more resources and personnel on sorting out these cases, which should have been dealt with properly by the police.

Dominic Grieve: If what the hon. Lady says is correct, it should not be happening. If she would like to give me the details of the particular office where this is occurring, the best thing that I can do is to have it
	looked into and write to her. I accept that all transitions can cause problems, but the CPS is clear that the basis for allowing these changes to go forward is that they will improve efficiency.

Public Service Pensions

Danny Alexander: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the reform of public service pensions.
	Seven weeks ago I reported to the House that in an effort to secure agreement, the Government were making a new offer to public service workers. Despite some unnecessary interruptions, scheme negotiators have been working hard to reach detailed heads of agreement by the end of the year deadline that we set. It has not been an easy task, but the Government have demonstrated that they will not shy away from taking difficult long-term decisions in the nation’s long-term interest.
	We wish to see pensions for public service workers that are fair and sustainable, that provide dignity in retirement, and that are affordable for the workers and for taxpayers. That is why we committed in the coalition agreement to establish an independent commission to bring forward proposals for reform. Lord Hutton’s magisterial report did just that. We have stuck closely to the recommendations of the former Labour Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
	The case for reform is self-evident. The average 60-year-old lives longer now than in the 1970s. That means that people are living in retirement for longer. The life expectancy of a 60-year-old was 18 years in the 1970s; that has risen to 28 years today. As a result, the cost of public service pensions has risen to £32 billion a year—an increase of one third over the last 10 years.
	We have already made some changes that deal with short-term pressures, including changing the basis of pension uprating to the consumer prices index and increasing member contributions by 3.2 percentage points, phased over three years. Those proposals are unchanged. Next year’s contributions increase is almost identical to that planned by the previous Government. The precise details of next year’s increase have been set out by Departments. All increases are tiered by income to protect the lower-paid. The Government will review the impact of next year’s increases, including on opt-outs and equality, before taking final decisions on how future increases will be delivered. Interested parties will have the opportunity to provide evidence and views to the Government.
	I know that many Members of the House will be concerned about the pay and conditions of our armed forces. Let me be clear that members of the armed forces will continue to make no contributions towards their pensions and will be exempt from the increases announced at the spending review.
	From the beginning of this process, we have committed to ensuring that public service pension schemes continue to offer a defined benefit pension that is based on the size of the worker’s salary and is not dependent on the market performance of a fund. That is not available to most people in the private sector. From the beginning, we have been clear that all accrued rights will be protected in full, and that the taxpayer needs to be properly protected from the risks associated with further increases in life expectancy by linking the scheme normal pension age to the state pension age. In November, we improved the offer to a 1/60th accrual rate, which is an increase
	of 8%. That is available only in the event of agreement being reached. We also agreed to protection for those who are 10 years from retirement.
	I would like to pay tribute to the Minister for the Cabinet Office, the TUC and the scheme negotiators on both sides for their efforts to reach agreement. I am pleased to report that heads of agreement have now been established with most unions in the local government, health, civil service and teachers’ schemes. It will of course now be for union executives and memberships to decide their response.
	The heads of agreement deliver the Government’s key objectives in full, and do so with no new money since our November offer. In future, scheme pension ages will match the state pension age and schemes will be on a career average basis; all the agreements are within the cost ceiling that I set in November, and will save the taxpayer tens of billions of pounds over the decades to come.
	Because heads of agreement have been reached, the better offer that I made in November has been secured by trade unions for their members, including the “no change” guarantee for workers 10 years from retirement. The heads of agreement also deliver a number of the key objectives set out by the trade unions during the talks. Negotiations on them are now concluded, and we and the unions agree that this is the best outcome that can be achieved by negotiation. It is the Government’s final position, and we will bring forward legislation to the House in due course.
	The full details of the heads of agreement in each scheme are today being set out in written statements by each Department. The key changes made are as follows. In the civil service, we have agreed to revalue each year’s contributions by the consumer prices index rather than earnings, allowing an accrual rate of 1/44th to be offered. That will cost the same as our original offer, but with a configuration preferred by the trade unions. As a consequence, the new scheme will be very similar to the Nuvos scheme that is already available in the civil service, except that in future the normal pension age will be linked to the state pension age as it rises. It is therefore deeply disappointing that the Public and Commercial Services Union has rejected the heads of agreement and walked away from the talks.
	I have previously made the point that the local government scheme must be treated differently because it is a funded scheme. The Local Government Association and the trade unions have agreed that the pension age in the new scheme will be linked to the state pension age, and their preference is to deliver a career average scheme. Further discussions will take place over the next three months to agree the details.
	In the health scheme, we have agreed to a revised revaluation factor of CPI plus 1.5%, which will allow the accrual rate to be improved to 1/54th. In education, we have agreed to a revised revaluation factor of CPI plus 1.6%, allowing for the accrual rate to be improved to 1/57th, along with modest improvements to early retirement factors. All those heads of agreement are within the cost ceiling that I set out in November, but in a configuration preferred by the unions.
	Discussions on police, armed forces, judiciary and fire service schemes have been a separate process from the start, and proposals will be brought forward in due course.
	Let me turn to some other aspects of the deals. All the agreements include a cap on taxpayer costs at two percentage points above or below the scheme valuation. That cap is symmetrical, so employees will benefit if costs fall. As Lord Hutton made clear, with the other aspects of reform now agreed there is no reason to believe that, under normal circumstances, that cap will need to be used. It is there as protection for taxpayers and for workers if extraordinary unpredictable events occur.
	In the course of the talks, unions have stressed the importance of ensuring that their members will continue to be able to receive the benefits of their scheme if it is outsourced. That is the purpose of the fair deal policy, the future of which we have been consulting on. Because we have agreed to establish new schemes on a career average basis, I can tell the House that we have agreed to retain the fair deal provision and extend access for transferring staff. The new pensions will be substantially more affordable to alternative providers, and it is right that we offer workers continued access to them.
	In addition, the Government will consider what practical options might be available to reform the terms of access to the NHS pension scheme, in particular for NHS staff who move to a non-NHS “any qualified provider” delivering NHS services. [Interruption.] That is something that the trade unions have suggested, so hon. Members should keep quiet and listen. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The statement must be heard, and with courtesy.

Danny Alexander: Opposition Members never have any answers, so they chunter from the sidelines instead.
	At the same time, by offering transferred staff the right to remain members of the public service scheme, we are no longer requiring private, voluntary and social enterprise providers to take on the risks of defined benefit that deter many from bidding for contracts in the first place. Replacing so-called bulk transfers of pensions with continued access to public sector schemes means that we continue to protect public service workers’ pensions, manage the risk to the taxpayer and forge ahead with our ambitious plans for public service reform.
	I have made the commitment that these reforms will be sustained for at least 25 years. The Government intend to include provisions on the face of the forthcoming public service pensions Bill to ensure that a high bar is set for future Governments to change the design of the schemes.
	What does this deal really mean? For our work force, it means that they will continue to receive the best-quality pensions available in this country—and rightly so. In the private sector, these pensions could be bought only at a cost of one third of salary. This is a proper reward for a lifetime’s commitment to serving the public. The new scheme is fairer to women too. By moving to career average, we will give a better pension in future to those, mainly women, who have low or steady salaries throughout their careers.
	The Government have been clear that because we are living longer, public service workers must work a bit longer and pay a little more for their pensions. But in
	return we have also made an important commitment—that at retirement,those on low and middle incomes will get at least as good a pension as they do now. I can confirm today that we have met that commitment. For people who depend on our public services, it means that most unions will be asking their executives to lift the threat of further strike action while work is done to conclude the final agreement, and I hope that the remaining unions will do the same. For the taxpayer, it means that tens of billions of pounds extra that would have been spent on unreformed pensions over the next 30 years is now available for other pressing demands. These are reforms that significantly improve the long-term fiscal sustainability of this country, and reinforce the credibility of our fiscal stance.
	The Office for Budget Responsibility will provide a forecast of the savings in its next fiscal sustainability report. For industrial relations, I believe this shows that it is possible to reach agreement through negotiation in good faith, based on clear objectives. That is the right way to approach relations between government and the trade unions. Sometimes the talks have been difficult, but it has been right to stay at the table. In these difficult times, it is important to show that people can come together to achieve genuine reform, preserving the best of the past, but recognising the realities of the future. This is a fair deal for public service workers, an affordable deal for the taxpayer, and a good deal for the country. I commend this statement to the House.

Rachel Reeves: I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement. Families and businesses who rely on public services, as well as the millions of public service workers worried about their finances and their future, will be relieved to see that real progress is finally being made in these talks. Labour has been clear from the beginning that the Government and public service employees would need to find ways of adjusting to the welcome fact that people are living longer. We said in response to the Chief Secretary’s previous statement on 2 November that any resolution to the dispute needed to be fair to taxpayers, fair to public service employees and genuinely sustainable for the long term, and that that would be endangered by a search for quick cash savings or the playing of party political games.
	The vast majority of public sector workers, including dinner ladies, community nurses and police community support officers, retire on very modest pensions; moreover, they are already being hit hard by a pay freeze and worried about mounting redundancies. It was clear to us that tearing up decent public service pension schemes or imposing punitive and unaffordable contribution increases would be entirely counter-productive if it resulted in lower savings and inadequate retirement incomes that only left more people retiring into poverty, dependent on state benefits in their old age.
	We will be looking at the detail of these proposals on the basis of the tests that we have set out. In particular, can the Chief Secretary offer clarification on the following points? Can he set out the timetable for further consultations and negotiations for each of the four schemes discussed today? When will he come forward with details for the police, armed forces, judiciary and fire service pension schemes? For each scheme, can he give us the new schedules for contribution increases across the schemes, the timetable according to which they will be introduced
	and how he will ensure fairness and affordability for lower-paid employees, especially those who work part time?
	For each scheme, can the Chief Secretary give us the new accrual rates and methodologies for uprating pensions, and say what the timetables for introducing them will be? What assessment has he made of the impact of the changes on the number of public sector employees opting out of the schemes, and the implications of that for future scheme income and viability, as well as future pensioner poverty and the demands on state benefits?
	How will the Government ensure that older workers, especially those in physically demanding jobs, are not forced to work beyond a point that would be detrimental to their health, or their ability to do their job? What will the Government do to maintain the morale and engagement of public service employees doing vital work for our country at a time of falling real pay, heightened job insecurity and significant changes to their pensions? Although we are pleased that there is agreement on a fair deal, there is a genuine fear across the public sector that the Government intend to use that deal more as they privatise parts of our NHS and schools, as well as other parts of our public sector. Crucially, how will the Government make good on their promise to deliver a deal that is secure and sustainable for the next 25 years, so that in future we do not face the uncertainty, anxiety and disruption that we have seen over the past year?
	The Chief Secretary has made much of Lord Hutton’s review of public sector pensions. We have always said that Lord Hutton’s report provided an important starting point for negotiations, and we have always recognised that change is needed. However, Lord Hutton has also stressed the need to approach these issues in a careful and balanced way, with particular care for the affordability of any additional contributions for lower-paid public service workers, and to avoid fuelling a race to the bottom on pension provision. However, the Government have made it much harder to make progress on many of Lord Hutton’s sensible long-term recommendations by seeking to impose, prior to any negotiations, a steep 3.2% rise in contributions and a permanent switch in the way in which pensions are uprated—from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index—neither of which formed part of Lord Hutton’s recommendations.
	However, it is good to see that the Chief Secretary recognises that he needed to do more to address the genuine concerns about his plans over the last 10 months—concerns about the need to do more to protect lower-paid public service employees from unaffordable increases in contributions; about the need to reassure older employees worried about how long they will have to work; and about the need to ensure that people who dedicate their working lives to our public services can expect a decent income in retirement. However, it must be a matter of regret for everyone in this House that it took 10 months of stalemated negotiations and strike action that resulted in closed schools, cancelled operations and disrupted lives for families and businesses around the country, for us to reach this point, just five days before Christmas.
	The last Government agreed and established a framework to negotiate reform and manage long-term costs; this Government chose to tear that up and take an aggressive and provocative approach to this serious and sensitive issue. For months the Government have refused to engage in constructive talks to address the issues concerning
	public service employees, engaging instead in unhelpful megaphone diplomacy. Major changes to public service employees’ current contributions and future security have been announced without warning and imposed without negotiation. Last month’s strikes could and should have been avoided. In short, the Government have displayed negotiating skills similar to those that we saw at the European summit, being more interested in going for the cheap headline than putting in the hard graft necessary to get an agreement that works for everybody.
	Clearly the Government still have a lot of work to do over the next few weeks. Ministers and employers will need to clarify the details of their latest proposals, and trade unions will rightly want to inform and consult their members. Reaching a final agreement will be a difficult and delicate process, and we must hope that it is not jeopardised by provocative tactics or inflammatory rhetoric, as we have seen in previous months. We hope that further progress will be made and that early in the new year the Chief Secretary will be able to return to the House and report that a fair and sustainable agreement has been reached, and that we will not see further industrial action. That is what the Opposition want to see, and it is what the country wants to see as well.

Danny Alexander: I am not sure that the hon. Lady was listening to anything that I said in my statement, because I have already answered almost all the points that she raised. She certainly seems to have forgotten that this is the season of good will. She said that the Opposition’s position was clear, but she did not say what it was. As she and her party have opposed most of the reforms, perhaps they should have the good grace to admit that they got it wrong. It is no doubt uncomfortable for the Labour party that many of its union paymasters have been willing to come to an agreement in the interests of their members—and, indeed, in the national interest.
	Lord Hutton’s contribution was significant; indeed, he is the only Labour Member—or former Labour Member—who has made a contribution. It is worth telling the hon. Lady that he welcomes the deals that we have announced today. She asked a question about the agreement put in place by the previous Government, so let me tell her what Lord Hutton said about that cap and share deal:
	“Cap and share cannot take account of the increases in cost of pensions over recent decades because people have been living longer. Also, untested, complex cap and share arrangements cannot of themselves, address the underlying issue of structural reforms, nor significantly reduce current costs to taxpayers.”
	That is why we could not rest with the position agreed with the previous Government.
	The hon. Lady asked a few questions about the timetable. As I said in my statement, the timetable for reaching heads of agreement is finished. Negotiations on the heads of terms have finished, and as I said in my statement, those heads of terms are agreed by most unions in all schemes. That is a good result, which I hope she would welcome. The other schemes—for the judiciary, armed forces, police and so on—will be agreed in due course. For the firefighters the deadline is 20 January; for the police service the second round of the Winsor report, due at the end of January, will take forward that process.
	I think that the hon. Lady still opposes the increase in member pension contributions, but I have to tell her that, as a consequence of today’s announcements, that is continuing. She asked a question about the relationship between accrual rates and revaluation factors. I listed the precise accrual rates and precise revaluation factors for each scheme in my statement; I do not propose to repeat them now, but they will certainly be available in Hansard later. As for older workers, one of the reasons why the trade unions favoured the relationship in question between accrual rates and revaluation is precisely that it works more strongly to the advantage of older workers. We will bring forward legislation, I hope in the next Session, that will include the changes that we want to make to ensure the 25-year guarantee.
	The truth about this exchange, as with so many others, is that there are two parties on this side of the House acting in the national interest and one party on the other side that seems to find it increasingly hard to see even its own self-interest. While we on this side of the House are working together to build confidence in the future of the British economy, Labour Members are fighting with each other, as they lose confidence in their own leader. As a result of this statement, at least the hon. Lady can assure the Leader of the Opposition that if he falls on his sword there will be a good pension available to him. All that the British people will see is a party that has not a shred of economic credibility left.

Andrew Tyrie: By far the most important point in this statement—the one that the Chief Secretary touched on only briefly—is that it demonstrates to the markets that the Government will remain committed to sound public finance. Does that not stand in contrast to a number of eurozone countries, not least France, which are finding such measures extremely difficult to implement, and are paying the price in much higher debt service costs?

Danny Alexander: I hesitate to enter into any specific diplomatic disagreements of recent weeks, but my hon. Friend makes an essential point. The ability to negotiate such changes strengthens our fiscal credibility as a country, as well as the long-term sustainability of our public finances. To those who want to see that this Government are capable of making changes that reassure the markets and build confidence—not just in the short term, but in the medium term—this agreement is an essential building block. It is one that other European countries have not always been able to achieve—and again, it goes to show that this Government are making the right decisions in the national interest.

John McDonnell: Is not the truth of the matter that even with this settlement, public sector workers will pay more, work longer and receive less, that the Government have bullied into submission a number of trade unions, and that those that refused to submit have not walked away from the talks but have been refused access to them? Does the Chief Secretary not accept that his role in all this is to destroy the industrial relations climate in this country, possibly for a generation?

Danny Alexander: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in everything he says. The fact that a coalition Government of Liberal Democrats and Conservatives have been willing, through a process of painstaking negotiation, to reach agreement with the unions on difficult decisions actually strengthens the industrial relations climate in this country. We now have a good, fair foundation for the relations between the trade unions and the Government; it is a relationship not between paymaster and servant but between two organisations working together to secure the best interests of their members.

Bob Blackman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm the number of trade unions that have reached agreement, and tell us what will happen to those public sector workers who are in unions that have not reached agreement? Their pensions are clearly under threat.

Danny Alexander: I think that there are 28 unions altogether, of which 26 have signed up to the agreement in principle, although it is fair to report that they now need to take the issues back to their members and executives. Unite has reserved its position in a number of areas, and the PCS has refused to sign up, which is deeply disappointing. In the teachers’ scheme, all the unions were present at the discussions and have agreed in principle, although four unions have asked to reserve their position pending sight of the technical annexes that will accompany the heads of agreement.

Anne Begg: Has the Chief Secretary made an estimate of the number of people who will opt out of their pension scheme because of the increased contributions, leaving them with no pension cover whatever?

Danny Alexander: For anyone who wishes to have a pension, these are among the best pensions available. It would be right for people to stay in their pensions or to join them, and I hope that no Member of the House will encourage anyone to opt out of their pension on the basis of this agreement.

Simon Hughes: I congratulate Ministers and the trade union leaders on what is clearly a win for the taxpayer, a win for the public sector workers and a win for the public. This is good news at Christmas, and it gives us the prospect of a much more prosperous and secure new year. May I ask what Ministers will now do to ensure that three key messages get down to the workers, and not just the leaders? They are that this is a better deal for the low paid, for women and for older workers; that this is a secure deal for the next century; and that everyone’s accrued rights are protected. The workers need to understand that, as well as the bosses.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his words of praise. He makes an important point about the need to get this message across directly to public sector workers. I hope that the unions that have signed up to the heads of agreement, following consultations with their executives in many cases, will now be part of the process of explaining the new deal to their members. The Government will also continue with the efforts, which we started after my statement on
	2 November, to communicate directly to nurses, teachers, civil servants and local government workers, so that they understand directly from the Government what the terms of the agreement are.

Clive Betts: In regard to workers who are transferred to another organisation, can the Chief Secretary confirm that their right to stay in their pension scheme will apply to all pension schemes? Will that be time-limited in any way? If the organisation to which they are transferred is taken over or changes ownership, will they still have the right to remain in the public sector pension scheme?

Danny Alexander: Yes, they will. I think that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on all the points that he has made. What we are saying is that we do not want bulk transfers any more, in which the new providers have to set up their own scheme. Instead, the people to whom he refers will continue to be part of the public sector scheme—the NHS scheme, the civil service scheme or whatever—with the new provider, rather than the taxpayer, paying the employer contribution into the scheme. This will create a more secure footing for those people to be on. It is important to be able to give full reassurance to the hon. Gentleman and, through him, to the members of those schemes that he is concerned about.

Andrea Leadsom: I congratulate Ministers and the unions on this excellent settlement, particularly because of the way in which it will benefit the lowest-paid and part-time workers, many of whom are women. Will my right hon. Friend tell us how many women are likely to benefit from the settlement? Does he also agree that the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) cannot welcome the proposals because of her union paymasters?

Danny Alexander: I cannot give my hon. Friend a precise figure for the number of women workers who will benefit, but about 60% of the public sector work force are female, and all those people will benefit from the terms of the scheme. Unfortunately, women workers tend to be among the lowest paid at the moment, and tend to have steady rather than rapidly rising salaries, but they will particularly benefit from the scheme that we are putting in place under the agreement announced today.

Tony Lloyd: I hope that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s remarks about reaching a settlement through negotiation will not have been lost on his colleagues on the Treasury Bench who were gagging for further industrial action. If he believes that negotiation is the right way forward, will he continue to talk to those unions that still need to resolve important points of detail in the interests of their members?

Danny Alexander: No one on the Treasury Bench wanted to see industrial action; in fact, the only people who seemed to welcome it were some of those on the Opposition Benches. Of course, we are talking about heads of agreement, and further fine details within each scheme remain to be resolved over the coming weeks. That process will continue to involve the unions, precisely as the process has done up to now. The agreement on
	the heads of terms is complete; that process is over, and this is the final position. On the question of the fine details, however, I can give the hon. Gentleman a positive answer.

Nadhim Zahawi: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the hard work that he has put into this process and the unions that have worked so hard to put a deal in place. What message does he have for the PCS union, whose own strike ballot had only a 32.4% turnout and which is now agitating for further strikes?

Danny Alexander: The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General tells me that there were 14 meetings in which discussions took place between the civil service employers and unions, and that the general secretary of the PCS did not turn up to any of them. That is a deeply disappointing position to be in. I hope very much that the PCS will rethink its position, because it will not have the support of its members—as that ballot showed—and it will certainly not have the support of the general public if it chooses to inflict further industrial action after an agreement has been reached.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury stop trying to demonise the PCS, and recognise that it is representing its members, which it has a democratic right to do, and that its general secretary has attended a great many meetings? According to the PCS’s calculations, the average civil servant will pay £63 a month more to work for longer to get less. He has twice told the House that billions are being saved, but that can be done only at the expense of hard-working public sector workers. Is he really proud of this?

Danny Alexander: I am very proud indeed that we have managed to achieve something that Members on both sides of the House thought would be very difficult, if not impossible, to do—namely, to reach agreement between the Government and many of the trade unions on the long-term reform that is necessary to ensure that public sector workers continue to get the best possible pension schemes long into the future. The previous arrangements were unsustainable, but this one is sustainable, which is why I am confident in offering the House a 25-year guarantee that no party in the House will need to revisit these arrangements over that period.

Andrew Bingham: The Leader of the Opposition claimed recently that the Government were imposing a 3% tax rise on the lowest-paid workers. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to clarify for my constituents that, under the Government’s offer, the lowest-paid workers will make no extra contribution whatever?

Danny Alexander: Yes, I am happy to confirm that. We set out at the beginning that no one earning less than £15,000 should see any contribution increase at all. In fact, through the consultation process, better terms were able to be offered in some cases. In particular, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health was able to offer better terms to lower-paid workers in
	the health sector. This demonstrates once again this Government’s commitment to supporting the lowest paid in these difficult times.

John Healey: The 2 million public service staff who took action last month will note that the Government have given no ground on the imposition of a 3% tax grab on their pension contributions. The Chief Secretary has said that the heads of agreement are not the actual agreement, but the basis for further detailed negotiations. What are his deadlines for starting and ending those negotiations, and when will the millions of scheme members who must, in the end, decide on their future have something put in front of them to which they can say yes or no for themselves?

Danny Alexander: It is a matter for the trade unions to discuss their individual processes of engagement with their members. We have worked well with many of the trade unions in this process, but that does not extend to my being able to describe their internal processes to the right hon. Gentleman.

Lorely Burt: I congratulate everyone who has been involved in reaching the heads of agreement. This will give hard-working public sector workers the certainty that their pensions will remain among some of the very best available. Will my right hon. Friend explain how the move to career-average earnings will benefit women and low-paid workers in particular?

Danny Alexander: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments. It is an important point, on which I am glad to have the chance to expand. At the moment, final salary schemes in the public sector work disproportionately to the advantage of people who are highly paid or who see a big increase in their salary at the end of their careers, and the contributions of lower-paid workers subsidise the pensions of the highest paid. On a career average basis, each year’s earnings is what it is and the contribution to be made is treated as what it is; pension is built up year by year on the basis of what people have earned and contributed. That means that each individual’s contributions are valued in a more similar way than they are in the inequitable schemes in place at the moment.

Andrew Miller: The underestimation of life expectancy that occurred in the 1970s and the pension holidays of the 1980s put huge pressure on the pensions industry, both public and private. I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has set a high bar, but as part of that, will he ensure that pension holidays are no longer possible in the invested schemes, as that would mean building in a correction in case we underestimate longevity?

Danny Alexander: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which I am sure will have been heard by the Local Government Association and the local government trade unions as they continue their talks on that scheme. I am not going to set out particular rules at this stage, but he makes an important point about the need to ensure that the schemes continue to be funded to meet future life expectancy.

Rob Wilson: I congratulate the Chief Secretary and indeed the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General on the successful negotiations, particularly in respect of the protection for low-paid workers. Is the Chief Secretary as disappointed as I am that the PCS union has not only walked away from this agreement but has continually misled its members by telling them that the Government were not interested in meaningful negotiations. How does that sit with so many other unions that have signed the heads of terms today?

Danny Alexander: I do not know quite how disappointed my hon. Friend is, but I am certainly very disappointed in the stance of the PCS. I hope that it will come round in time to seeing this as a beneficial and positive agreement. It is striking that, in the end, other trade unions have looked at the interests of their members and put those first rather than be too worried about the rhetorical position of a small minority of unions.

Andrew Love: Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the earlier question about the level of opt-out likely to arise from settling these schemes? I am thinking particularly of the local government scheme, which is a funded scheme that will be adversely affected by high levels of opt-out. Will he be clear about what work has been done on this matter and whether there are remaining concerns for trade unions and employees?

Danny Alexander: At the start of the process, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast opt-out rates resulting from the contributions increase as being about 1% of pay bill. Of course, because the local government scheme is a funded scheme, one thing we are allowing is that savings delivered by long-term reform, such as increasing the retirement age or moving to a career-average basis, can be used to cover the cost of some of the contribution increases. It is therefore possible that once the final local government scheme is put in place, local government workers will face little or no contribution increase because they are in a funded scheme.

Damian Hinds: For purposes of comparison, what estimate has my right hon. Friend made of the proportion of new starters in the private sector who can look forward to a defined benefit scheme?

Danny Alexander: The number of new starters in the private sector who can look forward to a defined benefit scheme is very small. The number of open defined benefit schemes is decreasing, but that should not deflect us from our wish to continue to provide defined benefit pensions in the public sector, which are a right and proper part of the reward for a lifetime’s commitment to serving the public.

Stewart Hosie: The Chief Secretary said of the civil service scheme: “It is disappointing that the PCS and Unite have not supported the heads of agreement and walked away from the talks”. Some might argue that they had been excluded. Be that as it may, he made a virtue of staying at the table, so what is he going to do to re-engage with Unite and the PCS to avoid giving the impression that it is his Government who are simply spoiling for a fight?

Danny Alexander: I would have welcomed from the Scottish National party—as from the Labour Front-Bench team—a recognition that opposition to these reforms was wrong and a welcome of the fact that we have reached agreement. Sadly, Salmond and Serwotka are the duo who continue to reject public service pension reform. The position of Unite is more nuanced, as it has signed up to the agreement in the local government sector and reserved its position on the health sector, pending consultation with some of its lay members. If that proves to be positive, the union would be welcome back at the negotiating table.

David Mowat: An inflation-proof pension of £20,000 a year taken at the age of 67 would cost about £500,000 to purchase on the open market, yet the average pot in the private sector is about £30,000 for those people who have any provision at all. This difference is exacerbated by the charging structure in the UK fund management industry, which cripples private provision. Now that the Chief Secretary has more time on his hands, having concluded these negotiations, will he address this issue with colleagues because it is a disgrace?

Danny Alexander: I am not sure that I would accept the description of having time on my hands. The hon. Gentleman’s point is a serious one, however, particularly on the charging structure. This has been looked at by the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb) in the context of the new National Employment Savings Trust scheme, and the Financial Secretary has been considering it. If we can find things to help reduce those costs, we will certainly go ahead with them.

Chris Williamson: The truth is that this Government are indulging in a race to the bottom on pensions. The fact is that the 11% of private sector workers currently in a defined benefit scheme will find pressure being brought to bear to reduce the benefits of those schemes as a result of the Minister’s forcing down of public sector pensions. Will he tell the House how it can possibly be in the national interest to force more pensioners into poverty, resulting in hundreds of thousands if not millions of pensioners in the future having to rely on means-tested benefits?

Danny Alexander: I have to say that that is the most shameful scaremongering about what we are offering that I have heard. What we are offering public service workers are the best pensions available to any work force in the country. Most public service workers will continue to have a very good pension in retirement. People on low and middle incomes will in most cases receive a better pension at their retirement age than they could under the current schemes. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will join us in explaining and selling this deal to the many hard-working public servants in his constituency rather than misrepresenting it.

Christopher Pincher: Given that Lord Hutton has said that it is “hard to imagine” a better offer than the “generous” one put forward by the Government, has my right hon. Friend received any
	imaginative proposals from the shadow Chief Secretary about public pension reform or indeed about how she would pay for it?

Danny Alexander: Sadly, the answer to that question is that no such proposals whatsoever have been received.

Fiona Mactaggart: I am disappointed that despite a number of written questions from me and the questions put today, the Chief Secretary cannot do better than the OBR estimate of 1% of the pay bill in respect of reduced contributions. In his statement, however, he said that the Government would “review the impact of next year’s increases, including on opt-outs and equality”. Does that mean he will tell us in a report to the House about the impact of these changes on equality so that we can know whether or not his confidence that this is a good deal for women is true?

Danny Alexander: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for picking up on that point. We will certainly look at the impact on opt-outs of the first year’s contribution increase. That will allow us to make adjustments to how we deliver the increase in years 2 and 3. I will be happy to share the relevant evidence in an appropriate form, perhaps in a statement or debate in the House.

Priti Patel: In light of the hard-line position taken by the PCS union, what indication has my right hon. Friend had that it is serious about pension reform and will come back and sit at the negotiating table?

Danny Alexander: I am not sure that I have had any such indications so far, but I would, of course, welcome them if they came in the future?

Gregg McClymont: The Chief Secretary will be aware of the demanding and dangerous job done by prison officers up and down this country. Will he clarify the state of negotiations with the Prison Officers Association on the normal pension age for prison officers in the context of the difficult and important job they do?

Danny Alexander: I join the hon. Gentleman in expressing gratitude for the hard work that prison officers do for the country, and in recognising the physically demanding nature of some of that work. There is a specific outstanding issue in the arrangements relating to mechanisms allowing prison officers to retire before reaching the state pension age, and we are continuing to engage in discussions with the Prison Officers Association to deal with precisely the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.

John Pugh: Should not something be done about the destructive polarisation of the public and private sectors that this issue encourages?

Danny Alexander: I agree that, while we are securing very good pensions for public service workers, we must not neglect the fact that many millions of private sector workers have no pension provision at all. That is what the NEST scheme is intended to address. The opt-in arrangement for a new basic pension scheme, which will be rolled out over the next five or six years, will enable those millions in the private sector who currently have
	no provision to build some up for themselves. I hope that, in due course, my hon. Friend will join us in promoting that scheme to constituents.

Sheila Gilmore: Would not the negotiations have proceeded more quickly and smoothly had the Chief Secretary’s party not colluded in the constant denigration of public sector workers, and the setting of one group against the other? The Chief Secretary is still doing that today in seeking to create a huge divide between public and private sector workers, and to make one group envious of the other.

Danny Alexander: Opposition Members seem to be making increasingly desperate attempts to find new ways of saying that they do not agree with what we have offered. It would be simpler for them to say that they welcome the agreements that we have reached in many areas.
	I said in my statement, but will happily repeat for the hon. Lady’s benefit, that the contribution made to the country by public service workers such as teachers, civil servants, nurses, local government workers, firefighters and prison officers is enormously important. That is why one of the Government’s objectives has been to ensure that they continue to receive better pension provision than any other work force in the country, which is absolutely right. I hope that, on reflection, she will choose to welcome that.

Therese Coffey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that following these reforms, lower-paid nurses, teachers and civil servants will no longer subsidise the pensions of chief executives, permanent secretaries and the like?

Danny Alexander: I entirely agree. That is one of the abiding reasons why both the hon. Lady’s party and mine have sought to reform public service pensions for many years. As a result of the inequities in the current system, the contributions of hard-pressed low-income workers subsidise the pensions of the wealthiest public service workers. The new deals will mean that that will no longer happen.

Lilian Greenwood: Large increases in pension contributions combined with a continuing pay freeze will lead to a severe squeeze on living standards for nurses, teachers and other public service workers. What impact will that squeeze have on the wider economy, particularly in regions where there is a high proportion of public service employment?

Danny Alexander: There is a squeeze on living standards and, indeed, on our economy for a combination of reasons, including the crisis in the eurozone and the catastrophic mess that the hon. Lady’s party made of the economy. I think she should start by admitting that.

Nigel Mills: I congratulate the Chief Secretary on reaching an agreement. The last thing that any of us want is a regular five-yearly salami slicing of public sector pensions. What aspects of the deal will make it future-proof over the 25-year period to which he has referred?

Danny Alexander: That is an extremely good point. Under the earlier cap and share arrangement, there would have been a three-yearly salami slicing of pensions: every three years, public service workers would face the prospect of increases in their contributions and reductions in their benefits. The principal feature of the new scheme, which protects them from that prospect, is the link between the normal pension age and the state pension age. As the state pension age rises, so will the retirement age for public service workers. That arrangement, which Lord Hutton recommended, is the best and simplest way of protecting public service schemes from the longevity risk in the future, which is why those schemes are fundamentally sustainable.

Ian Lavery: The right hon. Gentleman said that agreement had largely been reached in the negotiations, and that it would now be referred to trade union executives and, perhaps, individual members, through a ballot. Does he agree that, according to the democratic process, those individual members have as much right to reject the offer as to accept it, and will he tell us what attitude the Government would adopt to such a rejection?

Danny Alexander: Members of trade unions do indeed have that right, and it will be for the unions to decide their individual processes. I made clear in my statement that the negotiations on the heads of terms had been completed, that this was the Government’s final position, and that we were proceeding to draft legislation on that basis.

Philip Hollobone: Most of my constituents will never have access to a public sector pension, and if they have any private sector pension provision, it is likely to be neither guaranteed nor linked to inflation. Given that the cost of public sector pensions is now £32 billion a year and has increased by a third over the last 10 years, should not the agreement be warmly welcomed? Without it, we would leave a huge pension liability to be paid off by our children and grandchildren in the future.

Danny Alexander: The hon. Gentleman has described the position precisely. Over the next 20 or 30 years, the agreement will save taxpayers, including his constituents, tens of billions of pounds which it will be possible to use for other purposes. I recognise that many of his constituents in the private sector do not have access to pension provision, and I hope that that problem can be addressed, not least by means of the NEST scheme.

Katy Clark: Will the Government take steps to veto any agreements that may be made between the trade unions and the Scottish Government?

Danny Alexander: I hesitate to use the word “veto” at the Dispatch Box, even in answer to the hon. Lady’s tempting question. It is traditional for Scottish schemes to proceed by analogy with our United Kingdom schemes. I hope that that will continue, and that the intransigent opposition of the Scottish Government to any pension reform will cease. Of course, as with contributions, if the Scottish Government choose to proceed differently they will have to bear the cost.

Peter Bone: This excellent deputy Chancellor is very self-effacing, but he has achieved a considerable feat in bringing the negotiations to a successful conclusion. Does he agree with the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), that what he did in putting the national interest first should be considered equivalent to what the Prime Minister did in Europe?

Danny Alexander: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. Over the last few months, I have sometimes felt less like a Chief Secretary than a chief negotiator. I certainly think that, in this as in every other aspect of our policy, the Government as a whole have indeed put the national interest first.

Tom Blenkinsop: Will the Chief Secretary specify the actuarial reductions involved in all four pension schemes? Have they changed? What will the consequences be for shift-working public sector employees, whose life expectancy does not generally match the national average, if they opt out of schemes?

Danny Alexander: The actuarial factors have not changed. Early retirement pensions will still be calculated on an actuarially fair basis, although of course that in itself changes over time according to the actuarial assumptions. The only exception is the teachers’ scheme. There has been discussion about modest enhancements to early retirement factors at the cost of the accrual rate for retirement ages over 65, as and when the state pension age exceeds 65. The teaching unions made that a priority in their negotiations, and we have chosen to agree with them.

Russell Brown: I hope the Chief Secretary is beginning to realise that the very thing that is likely to destabilise some pension funds is the decision of members to opt out of them.
	The right hon. Gentleman has made great play of the position of the PCS and that of my own trade union, Unite, but has made very few comments about the Prison Officers Association, except when the issue was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont). The Chief Secretary said that two unions had not signed the formal heads of agreement. Will he confirm that the POA has not signed it?

Danny Alexander: I interpret the position of the Prison Officers Association more positively, which is why I did not mention the association in my statement. However, as I said to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont), who is no longer present, there is a specific outstanding issue in the arrangements relating to mechanisms allowing prison officers to retire before reaching the state pension age, and we are continuing to engage in discussions with the Prison Officers Association.
	I bow to none in my respect for the work of prison officers. I think it right for my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General to continue to engage in those discussions, because this issue is both important and specific to that particular work force.

Points of Order

Alison Seabeck: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am very concerned that the Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), appears to have forgotten to follow up on the specific commitment he made on two occasions in this House—first, to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) on 4 July, c. 1212, and, secondly, to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on 14 November, c. 570—that he would bring forward a White Paper on defence procurement previously promised in the spring. Given the economic downturn, that paper is vital for the defence industrial base, which accounts for 10% of GDP. Will you, Mr Speaker, therefore assist the Minister with his memory lapse by asking him to come to the House before the year ends and he fails to fulfil his promise?

Mr Speaker: That is not directly a matter for the Chair, but what I can do to assist is look meaningfully, but in a typically friendly fashion, at the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House, both of whom will have heard the hon. Lady’s point of order.

David Heath: rose—

Mr Speaker: Indeed, the Deputy Leader of the House is champing at the bit, as he is keen to favour the House with a response, which we will now hear.

David Heath: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Lady mentioned a memory lapse, but I think she may have suffered a memory lapse since yesterday, when we had Defence questions and the Minister with responsibility for defence procurement talked about the specific matter she raises.

Mr Speaker: There may now be an outbreak of contentment, therefore, but if the hon. Lady remains dissatisfied—which I suspect is an unimaginable scenario—she will doubtless return to the issue.

Tom Blenkinsop: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) to imply that the shadow Chief Secretary was improperly influenced by trade union donations, when she has no declarations in the register yet has 10 donations amounting to just short of £50,000?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and I know to what he is referring. I did not intervene at the time because the Chair judges whether an intervention is warranted at a specific moment, and I did not think it was. However, the hon. Gentleman’s point of order does give me the opportunity to underline the point that no Member should attribute an unworthy motive to another Member. I took the view at the time—for which I make no apology and which I have explained—that the question was a collective criticism of another political party, rather than it being directed
	at an individual. If, however, it was directed at an individual, it should not have been, and I think the following advice is a useful guide to all Members: concentrate on the big picture and the policy, but do not attribute unworthy motives to another Member of the House. I hope that is clear and that we can now move on.

National Health Service (Right to Treatment)

Motion for leave to introduce a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Hugh Bayley: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision to ensure that medical treatment prescribed as necessary by a doctor or other medical professional must be provided unless the type of treatment is not approved by the Secretary of State or the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; to establish a national register of cases where such prescribed treatment is refused; to introduce a mechanism for appeal against decisions about provision of medical treatments; and for connected purposes.
	The NHS is becoming a lottery. Decisions about the treatment people receive depend not on their medical needs, but on where they live. These decisions are unfair to patients, inefficient because inconsistent resource allocation decisions are not cost-effective, and unaccountable because responsibility for the decisions is not taken by Ministers who are accountable to Parliament for how the NHS spends its money and because patients have no right of appeal if NHS treatment is denied.
	This Bill seeks to restore equity by giving patients a legal right to treatment, when it is recommended by their doctor, so that all patients have access to the same range of NHS services. The Bill also seeks to strengthen accountability by requiring the Secretary of State—whom I am pleased to see on the Treasury Bench—to come to Parliament to seek approval for explicit rationing decisions. The Bill seeks to improve transparency by creating a national register of all treatments for which NHS funding has been withdrawn. Finally, it seeks to empower patients by giving them a right of appeal if they believe they have been denied a clinically necessary treatment.
	There cannot be a single Member who has not been approached by a constituent who has been denied treatment. The following cases are just some of the problems I have encountered this year. A constituent with cystic fibrosis needs antibiotics to prevent lung infections. Nine out of 10 people with cystic fibrosis die from respiratory problems. She cannot use the two most commonly prescribed antibiotics because she is intolerant to them, so her consultant prescribed a different drug, but the North Yorkshire and York primary care trust decided not to pay for it. Haxby health centre in York recently told patients that eight common procedures would no longer be available to them on the NHS. Patients were referred to a private clinic charging, for example, £146 for treating in-growing toenails and £243 for removing benign lesions such as moles. Obese people can generally have bariatric surgery—the fitting of a gastric band—if their body-mass index exceeds 40. In York, however, treatment is limited to much more extreme cases where the patients have a BMI greater than 50. In vitro fertilisation—test-tube baby treatments—are available to infertile couples in Hull and Leeds, but not in North Yorkshire and York. Yesterday, the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) and I went to see our local PCT about its decision to stop paying for facet joint injections prescribed by NHS pain consultants to people in our area with chronic back pain. Patients forced to go private as a result of this decision expect to spend between £800 and £1,000 a year for the treatment.
	This problem of postcode rationing is likely to get worse, because responsibility for health commissioning will soon be transferred from 150 PCTs to about 300 GP-led care commissioning groups and greater fragmentation will lead to greater variation in treatment decisions made locally, and also because of the tight squeeze on NHS funding. This year, PCT recurrent revenue funding increased by 2.2% while the retail prices index in the year to date is running at 5.2%, so there is a real-terms cut of some 3%.
	The NHS has a cash-limited budget of course, and I therefore accept that there will be limits to the services it can provide. Indeed, in the 1992-97 Parliament, I was a member of the Select Committee on Health, which produced two reports on NHS rationing, or “priority setting” as it rather coyly called it. I contend, however, that if there has to be rationing, it is essential to ensure that those with the greatest needs always get treated. The rationing decisions must be rational, in that they must be based on clinical evidence—

Phillip Lee: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Hugh Bayley: I do not think it is customary to take interventions while introducing a ten-minute rule Bill.
	As I was saying, if rationing decisions have to be made, they must be both rational—based on clinical evidence—and fair, so that all patients are treated on an equal basis. If we are forced for cost reasons to say that, for example, tattoo removal or breast augmentation or in vitro fertilisation will no longer be provided, that should be a national decision made by a Minister and approved by Parliament, and applied on an equitable basis to all patients. It is patently unfair that in vitro fertilisation is available to patients in Hull and Leeds but not to patients in York.
	Piecemeal local decisions undermine public confidence in the national health service. When a man in pain is told he must pay hundreds of pounds a year for the injections his NHS pain consultant prescribes, or when a woman is told she must pay to have her in-growing toenails attended to or an unsightly mole on her face removed, they naturally ask what will be struck off the NHS treatment list next. Every time the NHS says no to a patient, a little piece of public trust leaks away—a crack appears through which doubt and fear seep into the public consciousness about the reliability of the NHS in our time of need.
	Nye Bevan chose the title of his political testament, “In Place of Fear”, with a purpose. Before the creation of the national health service, people lived in fear of the catastrophic consequences of illness or incapacity, and we do not want to return to those pre-NHS times. It is fortunate that all parties in this House are committed to the future of the NHS, so the Government, I believe, should act decisively to stem the leakage in public trust and to prevent it from turning into a torrent.
	It is for those reasons that I propose my Bill, and I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Hugh Bayley, Frank Dobson, Mr Kevin Barron, Ms Gisela Stuart, Andrew George, Malcolm Wicks, Barbara Keeley, Mr Virendra Sharma, Valerie Vaz, Bob Russell, Grahame M. Morris and John Healey present the Bill.
	Hugh Bayley accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 30 March 2012 and to be printed (Bill 266).

Backbench Business
	 — 
	[Un-allotted Day]
	 — 
	Christmas Adjournment

Nigel Evans: We now move on to the main business. As hon. Members know, it has been divided into several sections. It is all very complicated, but we have fingertip control in the Chair. [ Interruption. ] None of you believe it. I call John Hemming to move the motion in the name of the Backbench Business Committee.

John Hemming: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment.
	In addition to moving the motion, I have been requested to speak briefly on what I was going to say later in the proceedings. Chapter 23 and the United Nations convention against corruption both enable the review of judicial procedures to ensure they maintain the rule of law. Chapter 23 was brought in for the accession of Croatia to the EU. Reviewing this, it seems that the EU does now pass Groucho Marx’s test, in that it is a club that would not allow us to join. One area of concern is the inaccessibility of many judgments. Ignoring secret judgments, even public judgments are not always published. If they are not handed down by the judge, then copyright rests with the shorthand writers and they are not published by the British and Irish Legal Information Institute. This would need resolving to satisfy chapter 23.
	The underlying question for both the UNCAC and chapter 23 is that of the accountability of the judicial system. The courts are accountable through the appellate structure, article 3.7 of the Act of Settlement 1701 and public scrutiny. The latter is the area, perhaps, where England and Wales fall down most severely. I have come to the conclusion that secrecy undermines the rule of law. This has been recognised by many learned judges, but it remains the case that our courts have a considerable tendency to go into secret.
	The case of CTB v. NGN highlights a number of problems with this. An ex parte injunction was obtained indicating that the second defendant had been blackmailing CTB. However, last week CTB accepted that this was not true. This was more than six months after the original injunction was obtained. What was particularly interesting was that the original injunction acted to prevent the second defendant from writing to eBay and Blackberry to obtain evidence to disprove the allegations made in the ex parte hearing, relating to a shirt and text messages. Potentially, even laughter from a public gallery could have alerted the judge to the falsity of some of the claims. It appears that only when CTB was named in proceedings of the House did it become easier to obtain the evidence to prove that the injunction was not properly obtained.
	That injunction was clearly a gift that keeps giving. It is like an ace serve that cannot be returned, because the serve itself prevents it bring proved that there was a foot fault. The injunction was even effective at the weekend,
	when it acted to prevent three Sunday newspapers from writing articles reviewing allegations that there were unlawful elements to the statement of claim and original witness statement. It also acts to prevent the Attorney-General from investigating whether any regulatory action is required.
	Sir David Eady kindly referred to me as a “national treasure”. I was pleased that my cutting of the Gordian knot assisted in resolving a case in his court. We will never know whether it would have been possible to obtain the evidence as to the truth of the matter of CTB v. NGN without me fulfilling my duty of protecting ordinary citizens from secretive, wrongful and oppressive applications for committal. The case is now ended and no further action is required. However, it does raise serious questions about how injunctions undermine the rule of law and whether there should be statutory limitations on injunctions to prevent this from happening in future.
	My concern about secret court hearings and their unreliability stems mainly from the miscarriages of justice seen in the family division. Here we have a further problem of accountability, again relating to evidence. The difficulty, again, is that a secret court operates in a pool of reality that is not linked directly to the public domain. Much of the decision making in care proceedings rests on reports from experts such as Dr George Hibbert. He is someone about whom a number of people have complained, and I am told that at least one person has refused to work for him because of what she saw as his unethical provision of reports to suit the demands of local authorities.
	The difficulty is a question of how to ensure that this issue is properly investigated. The courts refuse to accept that an expert may be the hired gun of the local authority; at the same time, there is no right to a second opinion. Indeed, the court often refuses to accept additional evidence on behalf of parents and against the state. It is this procedural problem that in my view gives rise to thousands of miscarriages of justice in care proceedings. This may not involve models and footballers, and therefore may not get the same attention from the media; however, to me and many other hon. Members it is at least as important, if not much more so. We do not have the proper checks and balances that can ensure a truly independent investigation of miscarriages of justice in secret courts.
	There are two recent privacy cases—CTB and Clarkson—where it is accepted that the original claims of blackmail are not strong enough for the claimant to wish to press them in a trial. It is alleged that in the DFT case this is also true. ZAM and OPQ have not seen any attempt at a criminal prosecution. However, two recent criminal prosecutions for blackmail—the Rooney and Ecclestone cases—were not subject to anonymity orders. This is actually a high proportion of those cases where a claim of blackmail has been made. Many involve the same legal advisers, who, when giving evidence to the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions, made no reference to the fact that some of the allegations of blackmail are false.
	In my view, Parliament has a duty to investigate secret courts. It has the power to do this, but it needs to go further than it has so far.
	One issue that needs a detailed review is secret expert reports. This could be done by a parliamentary Committee. A second issue that needs a detailed review is secret
	imprisonments. The Hammerton case was corrected by the Court of Appeal. However, there are others, such as that of Yvonne Goder, where it is difficult to find out what has been happening.

Nigel Evans: Order. Everybody in these debates is going to be on the six-minute limit, and I am afraid, Mr Hemming, that you have just reached your limit. So, I am now reminding everybody that they are on a six-minute limit.

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS

Ann Coffey: Christmas focuses the mind on shopping. At this time of year, we become more aware of the importance of retail to our economy and the recovery. Retail is Britain’s largest private sector employer, providing 2.9 million jobs and representing more than 10% of total UK employment. In my constituency, more than 5,700 people are employed in retail. The retail sector generated £292 billion of sales in 2010, equivalent to one fifth of UK GDP.
	The exceptional flexibility of retail work, with a higher proportion of part-time hours than other sectors, gives employees greater freedom to fit their work in with wider family responsibilities. It gives an opportunity for that first start in life—indeed, 42% of all working 16 to 17-year-olds are employed by retailers. Youth unemployment is at a record high and has broken through the 1 million mark, so any loss of retail jobs will have a direct impact on young people.
	A lot of concern has been expressed by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—USDAW—about changes to working tax credits, which mean that the total weekly hours that a couple with children need to work to qualify will increase from 16 to 24 hours. For some families, 16 hours of part-time work will not pay, and employers will lose valuable staff and the flexibility of shorter working patterns. I ask the Government to look again at the possible implications of this policy change.
	Many challenges lie ahead for retail, including the worldwide economic downturn and uncertainty over the euro. In addition, the way we shop as a nation has changed dramatically. We have seen the massive growth of large, successful out-of-town superstores and the phenomenal rise of online shopping, which now accounts for nearly 10% of all retail sales. At the same time, we are seeing the decline of many town centres, with vacancy rates doubling over the past two years and total consumer spend away from our high streets now at more than 50%. The high street is changing, as was shown in the Mary Portas review, which was published last week.
	Many town centres have always been a mixture of big-brand shops and independent retailers, but out-of-town shops have been able to offer larger stores combined with easy parking. The town centres that have done best in the face of these developments are those that have invested and developed a distinct shopping offer. Out-of-town shops do well because shoppers like them, so town centres have to become attractive to shoppers and, as Mary Portas says, there are as many different ways of doing that as there are towns.
	As chair of the all-party group on markets, I strongly support the idea of placing markets at the heart of the plan to turn around ailing high streets and believe that vibrant markets are key to regenerating our town centres. At a time of high unemployment, market stalls are easy and cheap to set up, and they allow people to try out fresh ideas and flexible working. I also like the idea of national markets day. Indeed, our all-party group organised such a day in 2007, when dozens of MPs visited their local market.
	People like markets. They have existed for hundreds of years and have been a key source of retail innovation. I am thinking, for example, of Tesco in Hackney, east
	London, Marks & Spencer in Leeds and Morrisons in Bradford. Markets also provide a public place for people to meet. They give a sense of belonging and of place in the community. Good town centres and markets make an important and underrated contribution to public health. It is important that that partnership between the big retailers and independent small traders in shops and markets in town centres, which has worked so well in the past, continues to meet the challenges of the future. I see that working well in parts of Stockport. In Heaton Moor, for example, the district shopping centre is adapting to the changing demands of the local community. Its coffee shops, café bars, delicatessens, fish and meat shops, other specialist shops and first-class restaurants show how change and innovation can turn local shops into a vibrant and attractive place. Interestingly, the area also has a Tesco local and a Co-operative store, and about 2 miles away there is a Tesco Extra, which is a 24-hour store. That shows that out-of-town stores do not, in themselves, destroy town or district shopping centres; it is the ability to change and adapt that will determine their future.
	We need shopping to be interesting if we are to be attracted into the town and district centres. My suggestion to attract shoppers to Stockport is that it should offer a cultural experience day ticket. Shoppers could buy a ticket that would include discounted entrance to major heritage sites, including Staircase house, the Stockport air raid shelters and the hat museum. A trip round the Robinsons brewery might be an added attraction, and the day could perhaps finish with tea and a film at the Plaza combined with some shopping in Merseyway or the market. That, combined with special discounts at the shops and in the market, might prove very attractive to everybody in the north-west.
	Retail is an important industry, a major employer and a big contributor to the economy, and it is at the heart of our towns. The Government need to restore consumer confidence, because without that people will not spend money and there will be no growth. At a local level, councils must support innovative ideas, and big retailers need to work with town centre partnerships and independent retailers to develop a vibrant high street. Town centres should be places where we go to meet other people in our communities and where shopping is just one part of a rich mix of activities. If we can get this right, towns up and down the country will come alive again and retail will become an even bigger part of our national life, contributor to the national purse and provider of that all-too-important employment.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: I call Mark Menzies.

Mark Menzies: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to take part in the pre-Christmas recess debate. I also wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) for taking the time to reply.
	Enterprise zones offer great potential to the people of Fylde. In September, BAE Systems announced 1,300 job
	losses, which will have an impact on my part of Lancashire as many of those fall on my constituents. It was then that my campaign for enterprise zones really took place, although I have long been campaigning for an enterprise zone to come to Fylde. I must put on the record the fact that following those job losses the Government were quick to act, announcing the zone to cover the sites at Warton and at Samlesbury in your constituency, Mr Deputy Speaker, during the Conservative party conference in October.
	However, it is one thing announcing an enterprise zone and quite another turning it into something meaningful. The work force in our part of Lancashire truly are world-class. Many have backgrounds in engineering, in-flight systems design and advanced project management skills. As such, we need to aim high in the types of employers we seek to attract. In recent weeks, BAE Systems has come in for criticism for the way in which the aspects of job losses and restructuring have been handled. I believe that the Lancashire enterprise zones provide BAE Systems with an opportunity to show its commitment to the region and leadership in attracting world-leading companies to set up home on the Warton and Samlesbury sites, and I wish to take this opportunity to recognise all that the company is doing in this regard. It is also right to put on the record the work that you have done behind the scenes, Mr Deputy Speaker, to make Samlesbury a successful site for enterprise zones and potential inward investors. I know that you, too, have campaigned tirelessly, doing so behind the scenes because of the nature of your role, to do the right thing by the work force at BAE Systems, and it would be remiss of me not to recognise that.
	Many in this House will be familiar with the advantages that an enterprise zone will bring to an area, and the purpose of this debate is not to go over old ground. Following the Chancellor’s announcement in the autumn statement that capital allowances will be given for some enterprise zones and not for others, may I use this opportunity to call on the Government to ensure that we do not create two classes of enterprise zones, as that will lead to distortions in investment decisions? Instead, we should do everything we can to ensure that all enterprise zones are given every opportunity to flourish in what is a very competitive and tough investment market. I ask the Chancellor to ensure that, within the EU investment rules, we are creative and we give companies every opportunity to use all the various investment and tax mechanisms in play.
	With its high-tech and highly skilled design and manufacturing work force, Warton is a natural place for top-end capital intensive industries to invest. We have people there who have worked at the cutting-edge, and in some of the most challenging environments in this country, all their lives. Our people also have the ability to reskill, retrain and move into other sectors, so we must think about how we can use mechanisms in the Department to retrain and reskill them to meet the challenges ahead.
	I also urge the Government to ensure that all enterprise zones in Lancashire and the north of England operate on a level playing field and that investment decisions do not simply go from one area to another as a result of the tax structure created in an enterprise zone—I have the zone in Liverpool very much at the forefront of my mind.
	Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to request that the Government be open to all types of small-scale investment, such as investment in capital infrastructure, that would help to facilitate enterprise zones and make them more attractive. I know that the Chancellor will be receptive to requests for investment in roads and so on—on a small and limited scale—and I urge the Government to continue to adopt that open-minded approach. To gain the high-quality companies that my constituents and your constituents deserve, Mr Deputy Speaker, we need to seek not just home-grown organisations, but, in particular, those from overseas. So I urge UK Trade & Investment to have dedicated people selling the potential of investing in Britain’s enterprise zones to global investors. If we play this right, enterprise zones will give some of the most challenging areas of our country a new lease of life and will ensure that some of the most highly skilled and highly motivated people, who are currently threatened with losing their jobs, have a bright and sustained future. I thank the Government for the opportunity to bring enterprise zones to Lancashire and urge them to ensure that enterprise zones are the success that we know they can be.

Katy Clark: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies), who, of course, comes from my constituency.
	I also welcome the opportunity to raise a very timely issue: the collapse of the Farepak Christmas savings club. It has been raised in this Chamber on many occasions, because more than five years ago, on 13 October 2006, the company collapsed and as a result 120,000 people lost some £38 million. Very few of those people have received a penny back from Farepak as yet, although the administration has continued.
	Hon. Members will remember that a response fund was set up at the time of the collapse, to which the people of this country gave very generously and as a result of which some Farepak victims got some money. The reality is, however, that Farepak has still not paid out in any way to the 120,000 individuals or to their families. The Government are well aware of the background. Last week, the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning responded to the debate on the subject secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), and said that the current situation was completely unacceptable and that the whole matter had taken far too long to sort out. Members on both sides of the House would accept that the length of time it has taken to resolve the matter is not acceptable. We must see whether there are lessons to be learned.
	I would argue that the 120,000 people who saved with the Farepak Christmas savings club did so responsibly, so I ask the Government to look again at what they can do to ensure that those affected receive full compensation for what they lost. In my constituency, hundreds of families were affected and for many of them Christmas that year was destroyed. In particular, I pay tribute to my constituents, Louise McDaid and Jean McLardy, who both live in West Kilbride and who, along with others, set up the Farepak victims committee, which has been campaigning for the past five years for justice for the Farepak victims. It has become clear over those years that the sector is poorly regulated and that individuals who pay for items in instalments do so with very little
	protection. The Farepak victims are unsecured creditors, which meant that when the company went bust they went to the bottom of the pile.
	The reaction five years ago was the setting up of a voluntary organisation, the Christmas Prepayment Association, which provides should a company that is a member go bust. Many prepayment companies, however, are not members of the scheme and there is no requirement for them to belong to it. Indeed, some of the biggest players in the sector, such as Tesco and Asda, are not regulated by the voluntary scheme and the association covers only Christmas clubs, whereas many prepayment organisations are not geared towards Christmas.
	Many Farepak customers are very upset about how the administrators, BDO, have handled the administration, about the lack of information available to them as creditors and about the deal that I believe was done with some of the ex-directors of Farepak to pay a total of only £4 million in compensation of the £32 million that was due. As was widely reported recently in the press, BDO has incurred expenses in excess of £8.2 million in administration of the scheme, whereas it has managed to get only £5.5 million for the victims. I tell all hon. Members that there are serious issues about whether that mechanism should have been used to resolve the situation. Until recently, the victims were told they could expect 15p in the pound back, but now it is not clear whether they will receive even that limited amount. An application has been made for disqualification orders to be taken against the directors, but as yet we still have no indication of whether there are likely to be any prosecutions in the criminal courts.
	I believe that the case of Farepak highlights important failings in the regulation of the prepayment industry. That applies not just to Christmas savings clubs but to many situations where individuals pay for things in instalments, and, of course, it is people on modest incomes who do that. Most people who pay up in this way often reasonably expect that the sums they pay will be ring-fenced and put in a separate account and that they will have priority if the organisation goes down. Today, I ask the Government, five years after Farepak, to look into what can be done for the Farepak victims as well as at the wider issues of the prepayment sector, and to come back with proposals to ensure that the sector is better regulated so that we can give proper protection in the future.

Julian Huppert: It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate on credit and debit card surcharges. This Christmas, more people than ever are buying their presents online. Last week’s retail figures showed that internet shopping, or, as it is rather mysteriously called by the Office for National Statistics, non-store retailing, rose nearly 20% between November 2010 and November 2011—a staggering increase. Purchases made online now constitute 12.2% of non-fuel purchases. It is therefore essential that the Government do everything they can to ensure that when we buy something online the prices are fair, the process is easy and the transaction is transparent.
	That is simply not the case and the problem with surcharges is getting worse. A recent study by Which?found that in 2004 Ryanair charged its customers 80p for debit card payments, but that now passengers have
	to fork out £12 just to be able to pay for their flight. The British Retail Consortium, meanwhile, estimates that the transaction costs are 37p for credit cards and 9.2p for debit cards—rather less than £12. Those costs are no longer surcharges but a business model in their own right, and one that severely undermines legitimate economic growth. If Ryanair’s surcharges have risen 15 times in seven years, just think what such charges will do to economic growth across the country as we pull ourselves out of recession.
	When consumers choose to buy something, they do so in the belief that the price is fair and that they have got a good deal. So, when hidden surcharges are added at the end, consumers come away feeling wronged and the incentive to buy is greatly reduced.That is compounded by the fact that businesses are incentivised to think of new ways to get away with hidden costs, rather than delivering desirable products or services at the cheapest possible price. Prices go up and innovation is throttled, harming society as a whole. The Government must act now or risk stifling our fragile recovery.
	This November, retail sales were down 0.4% on the previous month, a disappointing outcome for hopeful high street shops. Clearly, the depth of the recession, the ongoing crisis in Europe and the difficult economic circumstances around the globe have had a severe impact on consumer confidence and people’s disposable income. Over the same month, however, online shopping was up 2.4%. The fact that internet shopping is growing is not exactly news, but what is important is the pace of that growth compared with that of other industries in this country and of online shopping in other countries. A recent study by the Federation of Small Businesses estimated that online trade will represent 10% of gross domestic product by 2015. If the Government also hope to eliminate the structural deficit by roughly that year, they would do well to pay close attention to internet shopping.
	Ofcom has found that eight in 10 UK internet users ordered goods or services online in 2010, a higher figure than that in any other European country. What we have here in Britain is a very large number of people who have access to the internet, use it on a regular basis and are turning to it as the means by which they trade. In that respect, at least, we are leading the way in Europe. As a consequence of those benefits—the savings for customers and the convenience—the Government have already announced £100 million to support the roll-out of high-speed broadband. Although it is nice to see the Chancellor embracing some Keynesian investment, card surcharges already represent a major supply-side restraint which could be removed without any significant cost to the Exchequer. One of the many questions that any Government must ask themselves is what are the barriers to growth. Here we have a significant and growing barrier to progress, and it is time we took action to end the distorted market and unleash the full potential of online retail. Otherwise, consumers will be put off internet shopping.
	Hidden costs harm confidence and skew the market away from productive enterprises, but they are also inherently unfair and damaging to a free and open society. The Deputy Prime Minister spoke yesterday about the need for an open society, the need to be transparent, and the need to have a fair distribution of
	wealth and property. Such non-transparent charges entrench inequalities in wealth and property; they make more difference to those with less.
	It has always been the case that the most discerning consumers—those who have the luxury of time and possess significant purchasing power—are able to sit back, compare prices and select what they want; that is something that those who are always working to pay the bills simply cannot afford to do. It should be of concern to the Government that a recent Which? survey found that half of people think that card surcharges make comparing prices difficult. The free market is distorted and undermined by any hoarding of information, and the effect that such charges have on our fundamental sense of fair play is damaging to society as a whole. The charges engender significant mistrust in businesses. That is as harmful to their balance sheets as it is to the consumers who feel betrayed.
	It is great that the reduction in travel associated with internet shopping has significant environmental benefits, in terms of CO2 emissions and problems associated with overcrowding. In particular, it eases congestion on the transport network. I am sure that any of my constituents who have tried to cut through the Grand Arcade these past few Saturdays would greatly appreciate slightly fewer Christmas shoppers there; those shoppers could, of course, go to the independent shops on Mill road and elsewhere.
	What can we do? What should the Government do? How can we enable internet trade to grow, and ensure that prices are fair? This is one of those extremely rare circumstances where the solution is as simple as it is effective: we can require card surcharges to be included in the advertised price. I am sure that many hon. Members, particularly on the Government Benches, will be delighted to know that the European Union is already taking a step in that direction—the 2014 consumer rights directive is set to limit debit card surcharges—but we can and should take action now, and go further. We could be leaders in Europe.
	In June, the Office of Fair Trading upheld the super-complaint brought by Which? about payment method surcharges. The OFT said that the Government could amend the Payment Services Regulations 2009 to ban the surcharges and make pricing more transparent and fairer. The Government must respond by taking that small step, in order to unleash growth, empower consumers and build and safeguard a free and fair society.

Kate Green: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise concerns about the collection and recycling of hazardous mercury-bearing waste from lamps, and waste electrical and electronic equipment, known unpromisingly as WEEE.
	WEEE is one of the fastest-growing waste streams in the UK. Following the adoption of a European directive in 2003, UK regulations were introduced. They took effect in 2007, and were aimed at recovering more of that waste and ensuring its treatment in an environmentally sound manner, with less going to landfill. The regulations require any business that sells and imports WEEE, including hazardous WEEE, to join an approved compliance scheme, pay a registration fee to the scheme, and supply data on the amount of electrical equipment placed on the market each year.
	Under the regulations, companies are required to finance the costs associated with the treatment, recovery and disposal of WEEE, but it appears that some unscrupulous organisations have been charging disproportionately for that. That may explain why the big four lamp manufacturers and importers—Sylvania, Philips, OSRAM and GE—have established their own not-for-profit organisation, Recolight, which offers free lamp-recycling, paid for by the imposition of an up-front fee, unique to the lighting industry, on the sale of hundreds of millions of lamps purchased by households and commercial and public organisations since the introduction of the WEEE regulations. That may seem an understandable response, but I am concerned that it may have led to Recolight enjoying a dominant position in the market for the recycling of WEEE lamps.
	The ability of the big four to apply a common up-front fee to every lamp certainly gives the appearance of the existence of a cartel. I understand that decisions about the application of the Competition Act 1998 fall outside Ministers’ remits, but the result appears to have been a suppression of competition in the market, which—this is the crucial point—limits the ability of the market to reduce the adverse environmental impact of hazardous mercury-bearing WEEE lamps. It is of concern that since the formation of Recolight, lamp recycling rates have actually fallen, whereas previously there was 25% year-on-year growth, and there has been growth in all other WEEE sectors. Research and development investment is also falling as a result, and jobs are being lost.
	Negotiations on the European Commission’s proposals for a recast WEEE directive are drawing to a conclusion. I understand that the Government expect to launch a consultation on the amendment of the UK WEEE regulations shortly, and I urge Ministers to consider how best those regulations could be recast so as to prevent any manipulation of the market in a manner that reduces the effective management and disposal of hazardous mercury-bearing electrical waste. It is vital that the market works fairly to achieve that outcome, and clearly the lamp-recycling industry requires stability if it is to operate effectively.
	I have a number of questions relating to the structure of the market, the impact on recycling rates, and the opportunities that will arise from recasting the WEEE directive and making consequential amendments to the regulations in the UK. First, in the light of an apparent fall-off in rates of lamp recycling, can Ministers say what monitoring there is of levels of recycling of WEEE, and what action is being taken to promote increased recycling volumes in order to protect the environment and WEEE operators—those are the main priorities of the WEEE directive—and ensure that consumer revenues are used appropriately? Will Ministers ensure that standards for the collection, transport and recycling of hazardous mercury-bearing lamps are improved, and ensure that full health and safety data on product recycling are made available to the UK lamp-recycling industry? Will they take the opportunity of the recasting of the WEEE regulations to look at whether the roles of the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive could be strengthened? Will Ministers consider requiring the value of evidence to be set by an independent third party, particularly where producers’ compliance schemes compete, from a dominant position, with those of recyclers?
	Do Ministers think that collection and compliance functions should be separated, and will they consider that during the exercise amending the WEEE regulations? Overall, will Ministers ensure that the overarching priority of the WEEE regulations is to increase recycling rates and improve environmental protection? It is clearly unacceptable for any behaviour by manufacturers to impact adversely on those objectives; that must be looked at carefully. It is important that Ministers take all possible steps, now and in the future, through the introduction of the amended WEEE regulations, to prevent such practices. I hope that Ministers will confirm that there will be strict regulation of the compliance schemes that have driven the kind of protective actions that are now threatening the survival of a once thriving independent market, so that we can ensure that recycling rates, rather than profit margins, are maximised. I am sure that Ministers will appreciate the public policy significance of these issues, and I very much look forward to the Government’s response.

Iain Stewart: I am grateful for this opportunity to put on record my concerns about how the Higher Education Funding Council for England—HEFCE for short—will, in 2012-13, allocate its funding to widen participation in higher education, and how that will impact on the Open university, which is in my constituency.
	The Open university is a much-cherished institution, and it enjoys widespread support across the country, and in all parts of the House. It has a very impressive record on widening participation in higher education over the past 40-odd years. In the current year, 20% of its new students have come from the 25% most disadvantaged communities in the country. It has 13,500 students with a registered disability, and some 18,000 students working through its access and opening programmes, so it has a very impressive track record.
	In the current year, HEFCE is providing some £368 million to higher education institutions across the country to support them in meeting the additional costs of attracting the students whom we are talking about. The Open university receives approximately 10% of that. I am aware of Treasury pressure on the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to divert some of that funding to other areas of higher education. In this academic year, BIS included the following wording in its annual grant letter to HEFCE:
	“for 2011-12 the top policy priorities for targeted funding should be supporting widening participation and fair access”.
	I heartily agree with that.
	My wish is that similar wording is included in the funding letter for 2012-13 which is due to be published in a few weeks. Without such wording, my fear and that of many at the Open university and in the wider higher education community is that there could be serious unintended consequences for the Government’s laudable goal of widening participation. I am not disputing that there is keen competition within higher education for a slice of the funding cake. There will be many equally worthwhile goals, but I fear that redirecting this money into other aspects of higher education would jeopardise the Government’s ambition to provide as wide a range of higher and further education options as possible. That is a role that the Open university currently performs exceptionally well.
	I draw the attention of the House to the recent Business, Innovation and Skills Committee report published in November, which stated:
	“Widening participation in higher education has an important impact on future economic prosperity and therefore is worthy of public investment…We welcome any additional investment to remove barriers to participation in higher education.”
	I endorse that entirely. Of course, all institutions in the country have to live within their means. I would like to place it on record that the Open university has played its part in this. When the previous Government withdrew funding for equivalent and lower qualifications, that resulted in a significant drop in income for the Open university. It consequently reduced its running costs by some £30 million. To help keep tuition fees low—the Open university has fees of around £5,000, compared with £8,000 or £9,000 elsewhere—it is further reducing its running costs by some £75 million by 2014-15 and some £30 million of that has already been realised, but if the Open university were to lose another £37 million as a result of the redirecting of funding, there would be devastating consequences for its programme of widening participation.
	The Government have a good record in this field and have worthy ambitions. The current funding scheme works. I very much welcome the £150 million national scholarship programme and the higher education White Paper published in the summer has a strong ambition to widen participation. I appreciate that the Minister cannot give me or the Open university an early Christmas present by confirming that this money will stay, but may I urge him to speak to colleagues over the next few weeks so that that letter reflects current provision?
	I have a few seconds left, Mr Deputy Speaker, so may I take this opportunity to wish you and all right hon. and hon. Members a very merry Christmas? I look forward to being back in the new year.

Nicholas Dakin: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this Christmas special.
	Thanks to the vision of a Labour council supported by a wide range of stakeholders and community groups in north Lincolnshire, Scunthorpe now has a fantastic new performance venue, the Baths hall. On Sunday, the Scunthorpe choral society joined forces with the award-winning Scunthorpe junior co-operative choir to give their annual carol concert in that state-of-the-art venue. Their performance was fantastic. However, many people booking tickets for the cover price of £10 found themselves paying an additional £1 of credit or debit surcharge—a hidden cost not seen until the purchase was in progress. That is just one illustration of the widespread use of surcharges, which I want to highlight today.
	It is estimated that 94% of the UK adult population holds a debit or credit card. Debit and credit card users are facing increasingly high surcharges when purchasing goods and services. Rip-off surcharges are often hidden until the end of the payment process so it is impossible to tell how high the charges will be until the final payment is made. The argument is made that these charges cover transaction costs. In truth, it costs companies only about 20p to process a debit card payment and no more than 2% of the transaction value for a credit card payment.
	In March, Which? asked the Office of Fair Trading to investigate the charges for paying by card. It is not only individuals and businesses that suffer from the practice of excessive surcharge, but retailers too. The British Retail Consortium representing retailers believes that Which?was right, in its super-complaint, to draw attention to excessive charges levied on customers using debit or credit cards. Retailers themselves face significant difficulties when handling card payments. The widely varying fees that banks levy on retailers for processing the different payment methods is a big issue for them.
	Results from the British Retail Consortium’s most recent cost of collection survey show that, on average, the banks’ charges for processing a credit card transaction are 15 times higher than for cash, but responsible retailers protect card-using customers from the banks’ excessive charges on them. Responsible retailers have been engaged in a long-standing campaign to bring those fees down to levels that reflect the actual, very low, costs of processing transactions. The BRC believes that banks should play fair by their customers, as responsible retailers do with theirs.
	In times of austerity, when as a nation we must all find ways to save money and tighten our belts, tackling excessive surcharges seems a fair and reasonable way to put money back in the pockets of consumers, squeezed family budgets and businesses. Action has already been taken in order to try to tackle excessive surcharges. The Which?super-complaint, challenging the practice of excessive surcharging, was upheld in June by the Office of Fair Trading. Over 43,000 members of the public pledged their support for the campaign. The OFT recommended that businesses make payment charges transparent by including the price of transaction fees in headline prices.
	The OFT also recommended that the Government take regulatory action on surcharges. There are two options: the Government could wait until 2014 and implement the consumer rights directive that has recently been passed by the European Parliament. That will place a limit on the amount of a surcharge. However, that will only cap surcharges, not eliminate them altogether, and nothing will happen until 2014. Two years is a long time to wait, and we need a solution now as surcharges are hurting family pockets and businesses now. An alternative and, I believe, preferable option would be to amend existing UK law, namely the payment services directive. An amendment to article 52(3) would not only control surcharges, but could eliminate them completely. As the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) said earlier, it is important that action is taken now.
	In closing, I reiterate that these rip-off surcharges are just that—a rip-off. They rip off individuals, families and businesses. At a time when we want to cut costs and save money, I urge the Government to take urgent action. I urge Ministers to think clearly and act swiftly. Let us not wait for the EU directive to take effect in 2014. Let us show the public that we as a Parliament can act speedily and responsibly in the interests of our people, and end these rip-off surcharges as quickly as possible by using the powers available to us in this House.

Simon Hughes: I join others in wishing you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the rest of our colleagues a very happy Christmas.
	The theme of this debate has already become apparent. It is warnings against excess, calls for a fairer and more prosperous society, requests for things we want in the new year—not from Father Christmas, but from Ministers —and an optimistic belief that Parliament can change things. I join in that optimism. I specifically associate myself with the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) that the market in the borough of my birth may be more prosperous with every year that passes.
	I have been raising such issues ever since I entered Parliament, and the issue that I want to highlight this year is high pay. We have talked a lot about low pay but now, mercifully, we are also talking about high pay. When Mrs Thatcher was Prime Minister, I intervened in her final speech here to criticise the Tories for their record on wealth inequality. Predictably, she was unapologetic. It was her clear view that rising wealth inequality was not a problem so long as we were all getting wealthier: never mind about the gap.
	Sadly, Labour adopted the same policy in practice. Rich people created wealth and they should be rewarded—for example, by cuts in capital gains tax—so that they could invest more of their unearned income in wealth-creating projects. I am afraid my colleagues never shared that view, and we do not share it now: I think we have been proved right. We have seen not greater redistribution but greater inequality between the rich and the poor. A very good OECD report produced in October 2008 entitled “Are we growing unequal?” shows that the top 1% in this country now own 14% of the national wealth. Department for Work and Pensions statistics covering the last decade or so of the Labour Government show that the average household income of the top 10% rose by almost 40%, whereas the average household income of the poorest 10% fell by just over 10% over the same period. That is not the way to make a just and fair society. Therefore, I think that it is right to return to these issues and remind colleagues that the figures continue to show some great inequalities.
	According to the Office for National Statistics, bonus payments across the whole economy in the financial year 2010-11 totalled £35 billion, the same as the previous year, so there has been no reduction, despite the austerity facing the country. The total amount of bonuses paid in the financial insurance industry in 2010-11 stood at £14 billion, which is also identical to the figure for the previous year. Earlier this year, in order to justify Stephen Hester’s £7.7 million pay package, the chairman of Royal Bank of Scotland said:
	“We need talented and motivated people and we need to be able to pay them fairly”.
	That was after the company made losses of £1.1 billion in 2010. In 2009, at the RBS meeting in Edinburgh to discuss Sir Fred Goodwin’s £16.9 million pension, shareholders objected, but even though 90% of them voted down the remuneration report, they had no power to amend his pay because he had an advisory role.
	There is a perverse logic to such bonuses: people at the top are rewarded in order to make the company do better, but even if it does not do better those people are still rewarded in the hope that that will turn things around. I think that people at the top sometimes forget that they stand on the shoulders of others—the people at the bottom, such as the administrative workers, electricians, cleaners and manual workers, without whom there could be no profits for those companies at all.
	My party’s manifesto at the last election proposed that there should be fair pay audits for every company with more than 100 employees in order to combat discrimination in pay, and that all public companies should be required to declare in full the remuneration of anyone paid £200,000 a year or more. The coalition agreement states:
	“We will bring forward detailed proposals for robust action to tackle unacceptable bonuses in the financial services sector; in developing these proposals, we will ensure they are effective in reducing risk.”
	We now have an opportunity, because there have been further reports that are very helpful. For example, the One Society report produced in September made it clear that the pay of low-paid workers in the UK is literally one third of 1% of the pay of their chief executives. The High Pay Commission report published a couple of weeks ago confirmed that last year executives of FTSE 100 companies awarded themselves a 49% pay rise.
	The Government have just finished their consultation on executive pay, and I want them to be robust in the new year and to continue to drive forward change in our tax system. I want what the Prime Minister said about the public sector, which was that there should be a fair ratio between the highest and lowest-paid, to be reflected in the private sector. I welcome the fact that the salary of every civil servant earning more than £150,000 will be published. It should be similar in the private sector. Just as the Government have started well by reducing tax on the low-paid and increasing tax on those who earn more, I hope that we will see the transfer of powers, as the Prime Minister said, from the boardroom to the shareholder, and that people on the work floor will be involved in decisions on the salaries of people at the top. What people want this Christmas is not a multimillion pound bonus, but for everyone to be paid fairly, and to pay their fair share too.

Priti Patel: I start by wishing everyone a happy Christmas. I have been waiting a considerable time for this debate, and I am glad that it is now upon us. I would like to talk specifically about businesses and growth and some of the barriers affecting growth in my constituency.
	By way of background, 83% of the local work force in my constituency are employed by small and medium-sized enterprises, which is around 15% more than the national average. Jobs and growth in my constituency are disproportionately dependent upon the success of small shops and medium-sized businesses. My constituency is home to around 3,800 SMEs that each employ fewer than 250 people across a wide range of sectors. I pay tribute to all the business men and women across the county of Essex. We are a highly entrepreneurial constituency full of small businesses, because they do a hell of a lot to create vital jobs.
	My constituency has some outstanding world-class businesses and family-run businesses, such as Crittall Windows, an award-winning international company. We have the world-famous Wilkin & Sons jam factory in Tiptree, an outstanding chocolate maker, Amelia Rope, and a worldwide logistics company called Simarco. They all exemplify Essex’s attitude and status as a county of entrepreneurs. As ever, with most independent
	and small businesses, given the right kind of macro-economic and fiscal framework, they will adapt to the changes and challenges thrust upon them by any Government, by international circumstances and—dare I say it?—by Europe.
	The Government deserve much praise for the actions already taken to support small businesses and growth, and the decision to reduce the small profits rate to 20p stands in stark contrast to what we saw under previous Governments. We also heard from the Chancellor last month that he will now halt the fuel duty rise in January, which is welcome news for small businesses. Businesses are now eagerly awaiting the promise of red tape reform. The one-in, one-out rule is all well and good, but all I hear is that we should just have a bonfire, throwing many out and bringing none in.
	There are still many barriers to growth. Interestingly, in the past 10 days we have heard about the Portas review. I should declare an interest as the daughter of small retailers; my parents are shopkeepers. I think that we all recognise the fact that our high streets are having a very challenging time. They need reform. Even in a place such as Witham, where businesses work hard, we have empty shops on our high street; it is a fact. Although there is no silver bullet or magic wand, the Government and local authorities need to start looking at the recommendations and implementing some of the excellent proposals that Mary Portas has outlined. I would like local authorities to become really ambitious in their agenda for growth and in how they support business, which might mean removing some of the licensing and planning restrictions that have been detrimental so that we can find ways to boost growth on the high street and make our town centres far more vibrant. We must also support national market day. Those of us who represent market towns want to see much more emphasis on that area. I hope that the Government will start prioritising some of the reforms she advocated.
	The other area is red tape, including the ever-burdensome red tape that comes from the European Union. For example, the agency workers regulations will cost Britain £1.5 billion. To put that into some kind of context, that is more than the apprenticeship budget alone, which we debated last night. I would rather see that money go into businesses and job creation in this country.
	The other concern for Essex and my constituency is infrastructure. Essex and the constituency are well placed. We have Tilbury, Felixstowe, Harwich, the A12 and the A120, but our roads are struggling because there is no infrastructure investment. We also desperately need infrastructure investment in our railways in Essex. We need to get freight off the roads and back on to the railways. Anything that can be done to deal with that area would be useful, because ultimately businesses will grow if we can sort out our infrastructure problems.
	Finally, I want to touch on banking. I hear endlessly from small businesses in my constituency that that banks are simply letting them down, not on a small scale, but on a macro scale. I am concerned by the actions of the banks, which are effectively causing my constituency and small businesses misery. While the small businesses are creating jobs, the banks are leveraging, with shocking terms and conditions and fees being
	added to business accounts. They are dealing with individuals and small businesses in quite a threatening way. I had one dreadful case in my constituency involving one particular businessman, about whom I have written to Ministers this week, and I should like an official, if not a Minister, to meet him. Businesses now feel compelled by aggressive banks to sign up to unfavourable terms and conditions, and that has to change. I hope that Front Benchers will respond positively to the issues that I have outlined and give small businesses an early Christmas present by committing to remove some of those barriers.

Philip Dunne: I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the Backbench Business Committee for giving me the opportunity to rediscover my voice in the Chamber, and for the format of the debate, so that one does not have to sum up 46 contributions in one go.
	I shall make a couple of general remarks about the importance to this country’s recovery—following the legacy of deficit and recession that the Labour party left us—of regenerating a healthy economic environment. It is the key to prosperity and to generating growth and jobs, but it is rare for Members to spend time singing the praises of the private sector. We spend much of our time focused on the public sector and on the problems that arise within the private sector, but rarely do we celebrate the fact that the private sector accounts for four out of five people in employment and the majority of all taxes generated, employing people’s creative juices and the entrepreneurs of the future to drive the economy forward.
	This country under this Government has started to have some success in the private sector. Exports in particular have grown by 16% since May 2010, and jobs generated in the private sector, as the Prime Minister reminds us, are picking up the slack where jobs are being cut in the public sector, so it is vital that we have a healthy private sector economy.
	I will not respond to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), because his comments did not relate to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but I will ensure that the Justice Secretary is aware of his concerns about tribunals in the care sector.
	I shall therefore address the role of retail, which the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) raised. I am a committed believer in the importance of retail for generating growth in the economy, not least because before I became a Member I founded a business that started as an idea and ended up employing 2,500 people in 144 stores throughout the country. I completely understand the importance of retail as a force for regeneration not just on the high street but in the wider economy, and its potential for adding significant jobs where retail formats are able to grow.
	The hon. Members for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) said that the impact of online sales poses particular challenges for retailers, and that is why it was so important for the Government to receive the report from Mary Portas on how we revitalise our high streets. The Government intend to look at her recommendations very seriously and will report on them next year.
	The key message that I learned from my time in retail was that to attract people into stores, whether one’s store is in an out-of-town centre or on the high street, one has to make it an attractive experience. Retail is becoming essentially a leisure business, so I was almost enticed to visit Stockport when the hon. Member for Stockport mentioned the cultural experience day ticket, something that other areas—perhaps even my constituency of Ludlow—may wish to take on board.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) referred to the great success of the enterprise zone initiative. The Government have announced 24 enterprise zones, including one in his constituency, and I congratulate him on his achievement in securing it in response, in particular, to the loss of jobs at British Aerospace. That is a fine example of how strong constituency advocacy can achieve results quickly under this Government. He was concerned specifically about the impact of differential capital allowances, and he will be aware that enhanced capital allowances are available only for enterprise zones in assisted areas, which his constituency is not, but I will ensure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware of my hon. Friend’s concerns, which I will forward to my right hon. Friend.
	The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) mentioned the challenges to those many people in all constituencies throughout the country who were affected by the collapse of Farepak back in 2006. I have constituents who are still awaiting payouts, as does every Member, I suspect. The insolvency was particularly complicated, with 116,000 claimants who were initially hard to identify because they were clients of some 21,000 agents and the company did not keep good central records.
	Processing claims and distributions to rightful claimants is therefore a costly exercise, and the main reason why funds have not yet been disbursed to those who have lost money—to creditors—is that there can be only one distribution, and the administrators are determined to ensure that they make the maximum recovery so that they can make that single distribution. Otherwise, the cost of distributing will eat into the funds available for recovery. That is the main reason why it has not taken place yet.
	Creditors are represented on a creditor committee. They are in regular and close discussion with the administrators about how the distribution is made, and they are also approving all fees paid to the administrators. There is a process—in which all creditors, including all those individuals, are represented—for securing the proper information about what is going on.
	The hon. Members for Cambridge and for Scunthorpe referred to the challenges posed by hidden surcharges through, in particular, online purchasing, which, as I said earlier and they identified, is a rapidly growing part of our daily lives. As cash payments and payments by cheque decline, and as payments by card accelerate, it is important to ensure that products are sold transparently in relation not just to the top price, but through comparison websites, so that online shoppers can make a genuine comparison. The Government are looking carefully at all the options for legislation arising out of the Office of Fair Trading’s welcome report.
	Hon. Members may have seen that earlier today the OFT made another welcome announcement, on measures to address the cost of travel money when purchasing
	foreign exchange in this country and through the use of debit and credit cards overseas. That will be done as a voluntary arrangement, and most of the largest banks in the UK have agreed to place a zero charge on foreign exchange transactions in this country. Through the UK Cards Association and the British Bankers’ Association, a new code will be set up so that charges levied on transactions overseas are transparent, a development that I am sure hon. Members will welcome.
	The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) has a particular interest in the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive—I hesitate to call it WEEE, because that can be misinterpreted outside this place—and a constituency interest through a company that is a major recycler of electrical equipment. I have seen her correspondence with Ministers in the Business Department. She has raised a number of points about how the regulations might be beefed up, and I shall ensure that following this debate the consumer affairs Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey) is made aware of her concerns.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), who is a doughty champion of the Open university, not least because it is the largest university in the country and, perhaps, because it is based in his constituency, raised concerns that have been well flagged by current students at the Open university. On the Government’s e-petition website there are no fewer than three petitions, one of which has 42,000 signatures, calling for the Government to maintain their widening participation funding for the next academic year.
	I can confirm that widening participation and social mobility remain key priorities for this Government, and by way of example we have this year, for the first time, for the coming academic year extended access to loans for tuition costs to part-time students, many of whom are at the Open university. We are also providing more financial support for those from poorer families. The maintenance support grant for those from households with an income of less than £25,000 is rising from under £3,000 to £3,250 for the next academic year. The national scholarship that is coming into effect from next September will ultimately generate some £300 million of additional cash to help to support tuition fees for some of the most disadvantaged. The Department has raised with the Office for Fair Access concern about whether funding for part-time courses will continue to receive wider participation funding, and it will be considering the issue carefully. As my hon. Friend said, the Minister is due to submit his letter in January, and that will give guidelines to the Higher Education Funding Council as to how it will continue to demonstrate its commitment to widening participation.
	The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) has a distinguished track record in this House for championing social mobility, and it was therefore no surprise that he wanted to talk about the High Pay Commission. As he knows, the Government are determined to get on top of a challenge that is another legacy of the previous Government, who, in 12 years, oversaw a widening disparity between boardroom pay and pay on the shop floor that needs to be addressed. We want to see transparency, proper accountability for shareholders, and a sense of responsibility
	from Britain’s boardrooms. Last September, we published a discussion paper on executive remuneration in conjunction with a consultation on the future of narrative reporting for companies. That put forward wide-ranging proposals on improving the link and aligning executive pay more closely to company performance. The consultation closed last month. Earlier this month, the Treasury launched a second consultation, on bank executive remuneration. That is consulting on arrangements that would extend to the eight most highly rewarded executives below board level disclosure requirements on their pay. It will report at the end of February, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be interested in what it has to say.
	If I have not dealt with any Members’ points sufficiently, I am sure that the Department will be able to follow them up in due course. I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and everybody present a happy Christmas.

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Nigel Evans: We now move on to the debate on issues relating to Communities and Local Government. Seven Members are listed to speak and there is a six-minute time limit on contributions. As I will be leaving the Chair shortly, may I wish everyone in the House, and all those who work in it and visit us, a merry Christmas and a happy 2012?

Esther McVey: When the coalition came into government, its focus had to be on reducing the UK’s debt and putting the UK economy on a sustainable footing. For too long, the UK had overspent and under-delivered. The Chancellor made it clear that the Government’s economic policy objective is to achieve strong, sustainable and balanced growth that is more evenly shared across the country and between industries, rebalancing the economy by moving from unsustainable public spending and towards exports and investment. This should support the UK’s long-term economic potential and help to create new jobs. In addition, the Government have introduced the Localism Act 2011, which recognises the need to develop sustainable communities, allowing them greater freedom to develop while focusing on the planning needs of the local area, with a strong emphasis on regeneration.
	Combining both those aspects is the starting point of my speech, which is about the regeneration and expansion of the Liverpool city region’s ports and waterways. How important are the ports to the city region? The ports and maritime industry have played a vital role in the history of Liverpool. In fact, so prosperous was the port that for periods during the 19th century, Liverpool’s custom house was the single largest contributor to the British Exchequer. Disraeli described Liverpool as the second city of the empire as the port became the gateway to the world, with 40% of the world’s trade passing through it. Liverpool built the world’s first enclosed commercial dock in 1715. Further docks were added in later years, all interconnected by lock gates and extending 7.5 miles along the Mersey. This interconnected dock system was the most advanced port system in the world. These magnificent docks, extensive dock systems and waterways still exist today and are ripe for regeneration.
	However, the course of life does not run smoothly, and during the 20th century the port began to decline owing to a combination of the UK’s lack of a manufacturing base and the shift away from the Commonwealth to the Common Market. The southern ports of Southampton and Felixstowe, and eastern ports such as Hull, benefited from this move. In the 1900s, Liverpool’s population was about 850,000, but it began to decline in the 1950s, and rapidly so in the ’70s. Today, the population is about 450,000—and yet the city was designed to hold double. A city with such a large infrastructure to sustain—from a tube system, to parks, listed buildings, art galleries and museums, and even two cathedrals—is expensive to run and much in need of an increased population. Added to that, Liverpool, without the full use of its port and waterways, is only half a city; having water down only one side and an inability to make use of it makes it thus. I therefore propose that any impediments to the use of its waterways, or unfair restrictions placed upon the city so as not to
	enable it to use them, would harm not only Liverpool and the Liverpool economy but the whole of the city region.
	As times change, situations do too, and in 2012 the port of Liverpool is again ripe to come to the fore, for several key reasons. First, there is the growth of the new emerging markets such as those in the far east and Brazil; that does not only affect imports, as the UK is looking to double exports to Brazil by 2015. Secondly, there is the decision to widen the Panama canal to accommodate the world’s largest vessels. That is due for completion in 2015 and promises to change the structure of world trade flows. When completed, larger ships will emerge from the Pacific, prompting expansion of the US eastern seaboard ports such as New York. As Liverpool is already the primary western facing port into the Atlantic, it will be favoured as a primary port for all these extra-large vessels. Thirdly, there is the domestic consideration of costs to business and ultimately to the consumer. Liverpool is geographically well placed and very central, with a population of 8.2 million within 70 miles of it and easy connections to Ireland and Scotland; and a four-hour heavy goods vehicle journey from the port of Liverpool can reach a population catchment of 34 million. Fundamentally, Liverpool remains a great place for doing the things that supported its early growth—notably, handling the UK’s trade with the USA and the Americas and emerging markets, and maintaining its links with Ireland.
	The city region has the ability to create a port hub—a super-port, if you will, Mr Deputy Speaker. To achieve this, it will need to continue the development of the 3MG inter-modal hub in Halton, the rail freight scheme at Parkside, the world cargo centre at Liverpool airport, and the post-Panamax facility, which is a new £300 million container terminal capable of simultaneously handling two of the new-generation post-Panamax size containers, and is privately funded by Peel Holdings. Although the existing maritime and logistics sectors support approximately 34,000 jobs, development of the super-port projects could transform the Liverpool city region economy, creating 21,000 jobs by 2020 and nearly 30,000 jobs by 2030 with the extension of the cruise liner terminal. At present, liners are permitted to berth only for port-of-call visits, but a turn-around facility would generate approximately £1 million for the city region economy for each liner. There is also the development of the—

Nigel Evans: Order.

Valerie Vaz: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey). I thank everybody in the House who has looked after us over the year and wish them a very happy Christmas and a happy new year. I hope that this Christmas gig will become as popular as the “Doctor Who” Christmas gig.
	I want to raise some planning issues that have upset my constituents, because I do not like to see my constituents upset, and then to discuss the national planning policy framework, which the hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) will also mention. I am a member of the National Trust and have dealt with planning litigation. I have had to read planning policy guidance and planning policy statements, so I understand why some people
	want to streamline them. However, that should not be done to the extent that they are non-existent. They are comprehensive and, together with the local plans and unitary development plans, they came about as a result of careful consultation. Word is already out that the national planning policy framework will be a lawyers charter. Lawyers are rubbing their hands in glee.
	Turning to Walsall South, I hear stories in my surgery of intimidation, threats and broken windows, all because some people oppose an application. I had many specific cases to raise, but sadly time has been cut short, so I will deal with just two. In my constituency, the green belt is already under threat. For example, officers said that the proposal for the Three Crowns inn site would involve unacceptable development in the green belt and there were no special circumstances to outweigh that. However, the planning committee let it go through, so three detached houses have been built on the green belt. That is a great cause for concern. My constituents told me that a substantial amount of time was taken up by speakers in favour of the development, but that they were allowed only three minutes.
	That brings me to the long-suffering folk who live around 1 Woodside close. All previous applications have been refused by the inspector on the basis that development would have an adverse impact on the character of the local area. My poor constituents have had to put up with six applications of a similar nature. Of the last two applications, one for the construction of 13 flats was dismissed on 28 October 2010 and one for the construction of 14 flats was dismissed on 20 August 2011. Still the applicant persists without any response from the council. Clearly, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 needs to be revisited by the council. The residents in Cottage Farm residents association feel that their views have not been taken into account. I will present a petition to the House at the end of the debate this evening on behalf of those residents. I admire their resilience and stamina.
	That brings me on to the national planning policy framework. The Government want to promote well-being, but they put it at risk by putting the green belt under threat. The Chancellor wants to use planning to stimulate growth, but town centres are crying out for development. The Government appointed Mary Portas to look at what is wrong with our town centres and she has told them to make explicit in the wording of the NPPF a presumption in favour of town centre development. In Walsall town centre, 15.8% of shops are empty—an increase of 20% since February.
	The NPPF will weaken the test that is applied to town centres. Under the sequential test, developers have to show that there is no suitable alternative site in the centre, but that does not apply to offices. The NPPF will relax brownfield targets; relax the requirement to plan for the efficient and effective use of land; reduce the protection of the green belt; remove the direction to direct offices to the town centre; and reduce sustainable economic development. The combination of those things will push development away from where it is most needed.

Duncan Hames: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Valerie Vaz: No. I am sorry, but I do not have time.
	Walsall has a history of protecting employment land and has a sustainable settlement pattern. Manufacturers who are experiencing growth have not asked me to raise planning issues; they have asked for money for apprentices so that they can train them and fill the skills gap. This is not about housing either, because the Home Builders Federation holds more than 280,000 units with planning permission that are ready for development. Planning permissions do not deliver new homes. The problem of there being not enough homes is more to do with the stagnant property market, banks not lending and the boom in overseas investors investing in housing, not affordable housing.
	Paragraph 16 of the NPPF states that the development of sites protected by the birds and habitats directive would not be sustainable. However, in the autumn statement, the Chancellor said that he wants to relax the habitats directive. I am on the side of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the National Trust, the Prince of Wales, the campaign by The Daily Telegraph, the Campaign to Protect Rural England and the people of Walsall South. Whose side are the Government on? With respect to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a special phrase: this is not about being a nimby, but about being a NIGEL—“Not In the Garden of England”. We are all NIGELs now.
	Finally, once land has been sold and developed, it is lost for ever. That is our heritage. That is what we leave to the next generation. I urge the Minister to think again.

Nigel Evans: This Nigel would like to remind Members that they can accept two interventions with the usual injury time.

Stephen Gilbert: May I start by thanking the many Members from all parts of the House who have paid tribute to the way in which the Backbench Business Committee handles these debates? As Forrest Gump put it, these pre-recess Adjournment debates are a bit like a box of chocolates:
	“You never know what you’re gonna get.”
	I just hope that my contribution does not stick in people’s throats.
	All the Members and staff in this House will be looking forward to spending Christmas with their family and friends. We are looking forward to a traditional Christmas dinner and, if we are lucky, to a warm log fire. However, not all our country-folk are as fortunate. I would like to spend some time remembering the hundreds of people around the country who will not spend Christmas with their friends and family, and who will not enjoy gift giving and festive celebrations, but who will instead spend it on the streets, desperately hoping for passers-by to give them a few pennies or pounds.
	Homelessness can have dire consequences. Just last month, I was saddened to hear about the death of two of my constituents who had been sleeping rough on the streets of Newquay. If we are to tackle the crisis of homelessness in our communities, we first need to understand better the causes. A recent report by the charity St Mungo’s highlighted the role that relationship
	breakdown, domestic violence and mental health problems can play in leading people to sleep rough on our streets. Indeed, relationship breakdown is the largest single trigger of rough sleeping cited by outreach workers. It is the reason for just under a half of all male rough sleepers. Almost a third of female rough sleepers have left home to escape domestic violence. The St Mungo’s study also found that just under half of rough sleepers have one or more mental health problems. Indeed, people who have slept rough are more than 15 times more likely to have a diagnosis of schizophrenia than the general population.
	At this time of year, it is important that we recognise the work of charities such as St Mungo’s in helping people in desperate need. I hope that in his response the Minister will join me in paying tribute to the great work that such charities do in caring for rough sleepers and giving people a second chance. In particular, I would like to recognise the work of Cosgarne hall in St Austell in my constituency in helping local people.

Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech on the problems of homelessness. I join him in paying tribute to the work of St Mungo’s and many other charities. Does he acknowledge that one problem for such charities is that when they house people in hostels or relatively short-stay accommodation, they have enormous difficulties in finding move-on accommodation? It ends up with a blockage in the system because local authorities cannot cope with the numbers that charities refer to them. The Government must address that issue.

Stephen Gilbert: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. We need to make the journey from presentation at the local authority through to hostel accommodation and supported accommodation much more seamless. I endorse entirely his recommendation.
	St Petroc’s is another homelessness charity in Cornwall. It helps to provide food and shelter to the more than 100 rough sleepers across Cornwall. That will be particularly important in the cold days and months ahead. I have visited the St Mungo’s shelter in Brent, as I am sure has the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), and seen the work it does with homeless people. I was also lucky enough to visit the Outpost housing project in Newcastle recently, which works with young lesbian, gay and bisexual people who get kicked out of home after coming out. Like many hon. Members, I have also been to Centrepoint here in London.
	From all those visits, one thing is clear: we are all just a few steps from being homeless, whether through losing our job or losing our partner. There is no typical homeless person and homelessness can and does affect people from all walks of life. That is why I am calling on the Government to consider the introduction of a right to shelter—a fundamental statement of principle that the Government will do more to help those who find themselves homeless, often through no fault of their own. It is simply not right that many people can go to their local authority for help and be turned away to sleep on the streets in the sixth largest economy in the world. As well as a right to shelter, there needs to be more recognition by drug, mental health and other service providers that they have a role to play in preventing homelessness. We need a more flexible, personal service
	that reflects the complexity of an individual’s life so that we can achieve the vital ambition of ending rough sleeping.
	Over the past year, 102,000 people approached their local council and declared themselves homeless, an increase of 15% on the previous year. Tackling homelessness must remain a Government priority, so I welcome the fact that the spending review protected the £400 million of homelessness grant to local authorities and the voluntary sector, and the fact that the Government have prioritised help for single homeless people, providing £10 million to the charity Crisis to help in its good work. I also understand that a cross-departmental ministerial working group has been set up to address some of the complex causes of homelessness. However, much more can be done, and I reiterate my call for a basic right to shelter and sufficient funding to ensure that no individual is left with no option but to sleep rough.
	I hope that my contribution today, though limited, will serve as a wake-up call to the Government to do more in the years that remain to them, so that in future we can all enjoy our Christmas holidays knowing that nobody will be spending them out in the cold.

Jeremy Corbyn: I wish you a merry Christmas and a good new year, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I absolutely concur with what the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) has just said about homelessness. He put the case very well. Despite various changes in homelessness legislation over the years, I find that in London a depressingly large number of people are denied access to housing because they are single, because they are concealed homeless or because they do not have an identifiable physical condition or mental illness. They end up sleeping rough, sleeping in cars or in some cases just endlessly sofa-surfing among friends’ homes.
	It is quite surprising that if we go down to “Occupy London Stock Exchange” outside St Paul’s, we find quite a lot of people living there who work, and for whom it is a place to live and survive. That is the reality of homelessness in this country. It is probably slightly worse in London than the rest of the country, although I acknowledge everything that the hon. Gentleman said about Cornwall and the south-west also having a considerable problem.
	I wish to draw attention to a number of matters in this short contribution. I am proud to represent an inner-London constituency, and housing is the biggest issue that my constituents face by a long chalk. The borough as a whole has 13,000 families on the register of those who need somewhere much bigger to live, and we have a very large number of young people and children growing up in grossly overcrowded accommodation. In such accommodation it is impossible for all the children to maintain good health, do their homework and achieve anything at school. It is hardly surprising that there is so much family breakdown and underachievement in school.
	I have people in my advice bureau in tears because they have three teenage siblings, sometimes of widely differing ages, sharing a bedroom and they are unable to study or do any homework, with all the obvious consequences. That leads to underachievement in school and to consequences for the rest of our society, as those
	young people feel excluded from the education system and end up in the criminal justice system because of what they get into.
	We have to recognise that the overall rate of private renting in Britain is growing at the expense of owner-occupation. That gap is growing much faster in London, to the extent that in my constituency, privately rented accommodation now accounts for well over 30% of all households, owner-occupation is below 30% and the rest is made up of council and housing association accommodation and a very small number of co-operatives. Almost a third of my constituents live in private rented accommodation.
	For young people who are in work—perhaps a young couple earning reasonable salaries—it is impossible to raise the deposit for a mortgage even if they can afford one. Their only chance of buying is if their parents are well-off enough and prepared to remortgage their own property to provide them with a deposit. The average age of first-time purchasers in London is now in the late 30s, if not the 40s. The choice between private rented, council rented and purchased accommodation that the Government talk about so blithely simply does not exist.
	Even in my borough, which is doing its very best on housing matters, it is impossible to buy somewhere under a part-rent, part-purchase shared ownership scheme. A key worker needs to be on more than double the average London income to get anywhere near buying somewhere under shared ownership. That is a major problem.
	The situation has very serious consequences for London. Where are the skilled workers of tomorrow whom we need in the public service? Where are the service workers of tomorrow? Where will such people come from unless we seriously address the need to examine all sectors of housing difficulties?

Stephen Gilbert: The hon. Gentleman makes an eloquent case, and I agree with much of it. Does he agree that one concern is that a pernicious generational divide might be emerging, broadly between the baby boomers—the housing “haves”—and generation X, for which, as he rightly says, home ownership is an aspiration that many will never be able to meet?

Jeremy Corbyn: Absolutely. Those who own and occupy their own homes in my constituency tend increasingly to be much older people. If they pass on or decide to sell their property, it is nearly always sold to a speculative owner who then rents it out privately. The rental income from those properties is absolutely enormous. There is therefore a very strong case for seriously increasing the powers, facilities, opportunities and abilities of local government, and for intervening in the question of housing markets as a whole.
	I turn very briefly, because the debate is short, to the case of my own borough council. It is doing its best to address the borough’s housing issues, and it is building about 100 new council homes a year, largely on local authority housing land, disused garages, car parks and difficult places on estates. In some cases it has made agreements with preferred partners through housing associations, which are building on former industrial land, although there is not much of that, or on other sites. The council’s condition for joint participation with a housing association is that it maintains the existing tenure system—a tenancy for life—and rent
	structure. That means that the rents are not market-related but economically related, and are those that the local authority charges. That is having a good effect, and the council is doing its best, but unless we can address issues on a wider basis, with much greater Government investment in council housing for rent, the needs of my borough will not be met any more than those of any other borough.
	I have two points to make in the last 42 seconds that I have. The first is about housing benefit. Will the Government raise the cap on housing benefit, so that the new rent levels that are imposed on people do not force them out of their homes? I have lost count of the number of people who have come to my advice bureau about to lose their home because of the housing benefit cuts and rent increases.
	Finally, the Labour mayoral candidate Ken Livingstone has proposed the concept of a London living rent. We have had a London living wage, and it is time to have a London living rent to be fair to people who are forced to live in privately rented accommodation by making it affordable, long-term and permanent.

Peter Aldous: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the Backbench Business Committee for giving me the opportunity to raise the issue of sprinklers in buildings. I do so because last year a serious fire took place in commercial premises in Lowestoft, in my constituency. Thankfully there were no casualties, but if sprinklers had been installed, the significant impact and upheaval that subsequently affected many people would have been avoided.
	Wessex Foods was a large food warehouse and factory located on the south Lowestoft industrial estate, processing raw meat into burgers. On Sunday 14 July 2010, firefighters from the local fire station were called to a fire at the site and arrived in just a few minutes. Unfortunately, the fire had already developed to such a degree that they were unable to go into the building safely. The building was completely destroyed by the fire, which took 10 days to be fully extinguished. At its height, 14 fire engines and 80 firefighters were at the fire, and over the course of the succeeding 10 days almost every firefighter in Suffolk attended the scene.
	The impact on the local community was profound. A factory that had been in operation for 30 years has now been permanently closed and razed to the ground, and 150 people have lost their jobs. Despite the size of the building, at approximately 5,000 square metres, and the use to which it was put, sprinklers had not been fitted. If they had been, the outcome would have been completely different and the firefighters would have been back at the fire station within an hour.
	There are compelling reasons why the current approach to sprinklers should be reviewed. Where sprinklers are installed, there is a dramatic reduction in fatalities and injuries. There has never been a multiple fire death incident anywhere in the world in a building fitted with a sprinkler system that has been designed to the appropriate standard for the purpose intended.
	There is a need to have regard to demographic changes. People are living longer, and older people are particularly vulnerable to the ravages of fire. They may not be able
	to evacuate a building as quickly as young people. Those who suffer from dementia face added challenges. As a nation we are encouraging older people to continue living in their homes longer. I have no problem with that, but we need to ensure that elderly people, especially those living alone, are provided with an appropriate level of protection.
	There has in the past been concern about the reliability and cost of sprinklers. However, in recent years, there have been significant advances in both design and reducing costs. The likelihood of a sprinkler going off accidentally is now estimated to be of the order of 16 million:1.
	It is important to have regard to the views and needs of the fire service. Firefighters do a great job, often in hazardous and dangerous circumstances. We owe it to them to reduce risk as far as reasonably possible. With fire service budgets and resources coming under increasing pressure, it is important to focus on measures that make their jobs easier. I am mindful that in rural counties, including Suffolk, we are reliant on a combination of full-time crews and retained crews in market towns. As work patterns change, recruitment of retained firefighters is becoming more difficult. We thus need to ensure that we reduce the risk of major incidents wherever possible. It is also important for Government to listen to local fire chiefs and fire authorities. They are the people on the ground with first-hand experience, who invariably know best, and they advocate more widespread use of sprinklers. In the past year, not only Suffolk but Norfolk, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Staffordshire and Humberside have demanded a more proactive approach.
	For commercial and industrial premises, two issues need to be addressed. First, we find ourselves out of step with many other countries. In England, only buildings of more than 20,000 square metres are required to be fitted with sprinklers. In Scotland, that figure is 14,000 square metres, while in Germany it is 1,800 square metres. If we had been in line with the European average, the devastation caused by the Wessex fire would have been avoided. Secondly, there has been too little focus in determining policy up to now on the business disruption that arises from a major fire. In these difficult and uncertain economic times, we can ill afford that. Some 85% of small and medium enterprises that suffer a serious fire never recover or cease trading within 18 months.
	It is important that the Government review the new and compelling evidence on sprinklers that is becoming available. This should be taken fully into account in the review of part B of the building regulations due in 2013. It is important that that review takes place on time and is not delayed. The evidence that we need to look at includes feedback from Wales, where the fitting of sprinklers in new residential property has been mandatory since the spring. Next year is the bicentenary of the installation of the first sprinkler system in Britain in the Theatre Royal, Drury lane. Some might say that not much progress has been made in 200 years: I would say that now is the time to redouble our efforts to save lives, to protect the vulnerable and to safeguard jobs.

Duncan Hames: May I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all the staff of the Houses of Parliament a very merry Christmas?
	I speak today in support of increased local decision-making in the planning system. Specifically, I would like to encourage the Government to ensure that the neighbourhood plans made possible by the Localism Act 2011 give local people enough power to have a real say over what development takes place in their area, where it takes place and, crucially, whether it meets the sustainable development test.
	There are many cases in my constituency that illustrate not only the ways in which people currently feel disengaged from the planning system, but the great potential in communities when they get organised. A great number of my constituents have contacted me about large housing developments proposed near Birds Marsh woods and the Avon floodplain in Chippenham. They have emphasised the importance of preserving the countryside around the edge of the town, and many have expressed their frustration at their apparent inability to affect the decisions being made. One lady made the point that,
	“the voice of ordinary residents does not seem to be heard, and decisions are made by people for whom this is not their home”.
	Similarly, the expansion of an edge-of-town Sainsbury’s superstore has recently been approved by the council, leading to the resignation in dismay of the chair of the Chippenham Vision group.
	Earlier this month, I asked the Minister with responsibility for decentralisation what advice he would give to councils that face such developer interest in out-of-town sites. He assured me that the “town centre first” policy remains firm, but that development in Chippenham would suggest otherwise, as Wiltshire council felt free to ignore it. There will be no public confidence in a "take it or leave it" attitude to planning policy, with some councils proceeding with development that is neither sustainable nor what local people want, for fear of paying for expensive appeals by developers.

Glyn Davies: I intend to speak on much the same issue later in respect of wind farms. Does the hon. Gentleman take the view that when the Government impose massive development on an area where the people simply do not want it, it poses a huge threat to people’s faith in democracy?

Duncan Hames: The imposition of development plans that are not owned by the local community was exactly what we had in the regional spatial strategies—the grand regional plans left to us by the previous Government —and I applaud this Government for abandoning them. The RSS in the south-west of England never actually took legal force, and I am glad that it will never do so. It is important that people feel that decisions are made locally and democratically.
	In Wiltshire, the council has not yet adopted its core strategy—its local plan—and we of course await the final version of the national planning policy framework in the spring. In the interim, our system is not robust enough to balance the competing interests in the planning process, and development too often seems inevitably set to proceed.

Jeremy Corbyn: For the hon. Gentleman’s information, I was born in Chippenham, thus I have an interest in it. I applaud what he is trying to do. Out-of-town developments not only disfigure beautiful landscapes in a beautiful area; they also create vastly increased traffic and
	environmental consequences for everyone else, as well as a complete hollowing out and destruction of the town centre, which becomes the home for charity shops and banks—and very little else.

Duncan Hames: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am delighted to learn of his interest in Chippenham. In fact, it was that very concern about the hollowing out of the town centre that prompted the resignation last week of the chair of the Chippenham Vision group, who had sought, in a voluntary capacity, to work with different parts of the community to build a vision for the future of our town centre. However, that was fundamentally undermined by the decision to grant a dramatic increase in the retail floor space of an edge-of-town superstore, which will no doubt be expanding into non-food items, threatening the businesses in our town centre, to which I shall return later.
	Given the Government’s new presumption in favour of sustainable development, and given the record of other councils in agreeing permissions on unallocated “white land”, which does not benefit from the protections in the draft framework, I see a need for robust mechanisms to ensure the rigorous application of that presumption according to clear tests. I was encouraged by a recent response that I received from the Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Hanham, who, without pre-empting the consultation responses, acknowledged that the meaning of “sustainable development”, as well as its application, was an area where the Government needed to look again more closely in the consultation. I would suggest that a crucial part of any mechanism for deciding whether an application qualifies for that presumption should be input from the local community. The question should not end up being decided in the courts through case law, or by planning inspectors. If that happens, the Government will not achieve their objective of greater localism.
	Instead, I suggest that we should look to the examples offered by communities in Wiltshire that are working with the Government’s framework for neighbourhood plans in the Localism Act 2011. Woolley, in Bradford-on-Avon, and Malmesbury, in north Wiltshire, are two communities that are seizing this opportunity. In their impressive document, “Plan for Woolley 2026”, residents have come together in an entirely voluntary capacity as Friends of Woolley to draw up a framework for Woolley’s physical, community and economic development for the next 25 years. Meanwhile in Malmesbury, Councillor Simon Killane is spearheading the neighbourhood planning pilot scheme. That includes a neighbourhood forum, which will bring residents and community organisations to meet potential developers to discuss their plans and what they might mean for the local community and the infrastructure it needs. Those plans will be assessed against the neighbourhood plan, based on residents’ own aspirations and ratified by a local referendum.
	I was pleased to read Baroness Hanham’s assurance that such neighbourhood plans will have to be “given a fair hearing” against other local authority plans or, indeed, the national planning policy framework. The 2011 Act gives neighbourhood plans statutory force. As she points out, such plans will have to be
	“in general conformity with strategic policies in the local plan”.
	However, the word “general” is very important. It reminds me of the old planning policy statement 12, whose definition stated that
	“the test is of general conformity and not conformity.”
	That means that it should be possible for a neighbourhood plan to conflict with land allocations in existing core strategies or local plans, as long as the general aims of development can be achieved, perhaps by bringing different land into use. The Government need to be clear about what “sustainable development” is taken to mean in that context. In my view, sustainability encompasses the impact of development on carbon emissions, travel-to-work journeys, the conservation of wildlife and the preservation of our countryside.
	I would not oppose housing development, but I believe that local plans need to propose development that accommodates the needs of the local population and the understood demographic changes that are envisaged, and not be about accommodating outflow or overflow from other towns. To do so would be to allow a council’s settlements to become dormitories, which is something that we are vigorously fighting against in Wiltshire. Members should be aware that the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government is due to publish its report on the draft national planning policy framework tomorrow. I look forward to reading its recommendations and contributing to further debates on this subject, so that we might harness the power of genuinely local decision making in our planning system.

Justin Tomlinson: Thank you for this opportunity to raise the subject of financial transparency in local government, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would also like to extend my thanks to the TaxPayers Alliance and the Local Government Group for providing some of my research notes.
	This is an important issue, because we would all agree that we should be doing everything we can to ensure that council tax is affordable, especially against the backdrop of pressure on front-line services, particularly adult social care, which is piling on costs for local authorities. With that in mind, I welcomed the Secretary of State’s announcement in June 2010 calling on councils to provide financial transparency by publishing online information about spending over £500 by the end of January 2011; all councils except Nottingham city council have now done so. Such financial disclosure will act as a trigger, enabling local taxpayers to see how councils are using public money, shine a spotlight on waste, establish greater accountability and efficiency, open up new markets, and improve access for small and local businesses and the voluntary sector.
	To strengthen that, the Government published their “Code of recommended practice for local authorities on data transparency” in September 2011. The code stipulates that the provision of public data should become integral to local authority engagement with residents, so that it drives accountability to them, it should be promoted and publicised, so that residents know how to access it, and it should be presented in a way that encourages residents to use and compare such data. Despite all that, however, we have not been overrun by a fully mobilised army of armchair auditors seeking to identify savings. This is a real opportunity that has been missed. To my mind, that is because although a vast amount of data has been put into the public domain, much of it is hard to comprehend.
	I believe that the focus should be on the quality rather than the quantity of what is available. Three examples highlight this. First, most councils publish their expenditure to comply with the guidelines, but that does not necessarily mean that the publication is clear. Individuals are therefore often unable to challenge expenditure. Secondly, we have seen examples in which, when the data are printed off, font size 2 is used. Those data are technically accessible, but they are not exactly readable. Thirdly, the information is often hidden away on websites. A good example is provided by Birmingham city council. To access its data we have to go to the homepage, then click on “Council and Democracy”, then on “Services”, then on “Featured Services”, then on “Corporate Resources Directorate”, then on “Invoices and Payments”, and then on “Payments to suppliers over £500”. The process takes us through seven different pages, and it is not signposted in any way. The information would be very hard to find without going through the DirectGov site—or being Columbo. Chris Taggart, the founder of OpenlyLocal.com, has said:
	“Public sector data is still being treated as an asset to be sold, rather than an underlying infrastructure of a modern democratic society, and with this approach people and the innovators who seek to empower them are marginalised and disenfranchised.”
	There are, however, many good examples of local authorities providing data in innovative and eye-catching ways. Examples are Kensington and Chelsea, and Northamptonshire, which map the data so that residents can understand at a glance where the money goes. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy says that councils should set out reasons for particular spending decisions so that a more informed judgment can be made. It also highlights the need for effective feedback mechanisms, so that people can comment on spending and have their views taken on board.
	Information needs to be accessible, transparent and understandable. I therefore welcome the five steps to fully open data that are set out in the code, but they need to be more robustly enforced. Guidelines could be altered to ensure that local authorities published their expenses in a comprehensible manner. A number of small and medium-sized enterprises are also working with open data, including OpenlyLocal, Spotlight on Spend and Armchair Auditor. Those private enterprises are all developing new ways of presenting council data. I would urge central Government to encourage local government to make use of such sites to break down its spending and make it more easily digestible and comparable.
	I also have a recommendation. I would like to use incentives to encourage residents to become that army of armchair auditors. There is a fear that any savings that residents identify will simply disappear back into a council black hole. Perhaps 50% of the savings could go back to the council for it to spend as it wished, with the other 50% being spent on the front-line service of the resident’s choice. That could involve improving the local school, the local community library or a local sports club. This could be processed by a committee of back-bench councillors and finance officers, who would weed out the majority of suggestions. Probably 95% of the expenditure identified would be justifiable; it might just have been badly explained on the council website, for example. The remainder of cases could be passed on to the lead member for finance to bank, which would help the taxpayer and improve front-line services. CIPFA
	has also pointed out that when expenditure is found to be justifiable, a letter should be sent to the resident to explain what the money is being spent on.
	A number of arguments have been made against this proposal. Some councils have said that they would be embarrassed if residents found that they were not spending money efficiently. I say that they should embrace that, because if a saving is identified, the council will have the opportunity to spend the money on something that people will reward it for. Nottingham city council says that the process would cost too much money. I do not think that that is an excuse when there is so much pressure on council tax bills. It has also been suggested that it would be too difficult to provide answers, but I find that unacceptable. Surely someone is signing off those budgets, and therefore owns them. A further argument is that much of this would involve one-off expenditure, but I believe that local authorities should still learn from such experience. This is a real opportunity to enthuse local residents and to deliver much-needed savings.

Mark Hunter: I am conscious that it is a privilege as well as a duty to wind up a debate for the Government from the Dispatch Box on any subject. Having spent some 18 years as a local councillor myself, including three years as leader of Stockport council, before being elected to this place, winding up a debate on local government issues today is a special honour for me.
	Members on both sides of the House acknowledge that local government faces unprecedented challenges. All councils are effectively being asked to do more with less, and some are managing it better than others. I am confident—indeed, the coalition Government are confident—that local councils up and down the country are equal to the task. This Government want to work with local authorities whenever and wherever they can in a spirit of partnership.
	Most Members of all parties are genuinely committed to good, sound local government as the most effective way of delivering the essential public services on which so many of our constituents depend. We recognise and acknowledge that there are hundreds of thousands of dedicated professional people employed by local authorities who are doing a very good job to the best of their ability. Although we expect councils to share the burden of our deficit reduction strategy, it is not because of some ideological desire to do down the public sector, but because local authorities collectively account for about a quarter of all public expenditure. As the country struggles to overcome the difficult financial situation we are now in, councils have a key role in helping to tackle the problems.
	I have been particularly pleased to note the Government’s progress on their empty homes strategy, their investment in social housing, and increased democracy in the planning network through neighbourhood plans—putting local residents in charge of the decisions that affect them.
	Let me now deal with today’s debate. I start by thanking all Members who have contributed by speaking passionately about their own concerns—and, more importantly, those of their constituents. In the time available, I will endeavour to give a worthwhile response to each Member’s speech.
	The hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) referred to the development of the port of Liverpool to promote economic growth. As a fellow north-west MP, I am familiar with the issues she spoke about. Indeed, the hon. Lady and I share in our constituencies the great river Mersey, which, as everybody knows, starts in Stockport and finishes in Liverpool—not the other way round.
	I am speaking for this Government and for myself when I say that it is vital for the Government to continue to do everything in their power to contribute to economic growth in the Liverpool city region, the north-west region and, of course, across the rest of the country as well. The hon. Lady is right that the port of Liverpool has a crucial role to play in all this. As she will be aware, the Government have welcomed the report on Liverpool by Lord Heseltine and Sir Terry Leahy. Their knowledge and understanding of the issues have been invaluable in shaping that report. Although it was an independent report, so Government policy will not be bound by it, we acknowledge that it provides a unique opportunity—not shared by other cities—for Liverpool city region and its partners to own the recommendations and to drive them forward in partnership with central Government. It has been noted and acknowledged that 6,000 jobs and £1.6 billion-worth of investment could be added to the wider SuperPort initiative by 2020.
	The hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) talked about planning issues in her constituency. The first thing I would say to her is that I am no stranger to the frustrations of the planning system myself, so I sympathise with some of the frustrations she expressed today. As it happens, like the hon. Lady—I do not know whether it is appropriate to declare the interest—I am a member of the National Trust.
	This Government clearly acknowledge that an effective planning system is vital for economic growth, for strong and vibrant communities and for a sustainable environment. As I am sure the hon. Lady is already aware, I cannot personally discuss the merits or otherwise of individual planning applications, as there is a strongly held convention that Ministers do not comment on the merits or otherwise of such an application in case it impinges on the impartiality of the Secretary of State, should that application come before him for determination. The specific issues she refers to are, of course, the responsibility of Walsall metropolitan borough council.
	Reforming the planning process is one of the Department’s key priorities and I am sure that the hon. Lady, like myself, will be looking forward to reading the Government’s response to the national planning policy framework consultation, which will be published in spring next year. Indeed, the coalition agreement and the growth review commit the Department to a radical package of reforms that will transform the planning system to ensure it meets the aspirations of our communities and supports the sustainable development that the country needs while at the same time being as simple to understand and as streamlined as possible.
	The next contribution was from my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert). I start by praising his campaigning work on homelessness. I know he has an excellent track-record on this issue both in his own constituency and at a national level. He speaks with great passion about the topic. I can confirm the coalition Government’s commitment to action on the issue, on which they have already done a great deal of work.
	Let me mention just a few of the measures that we have taken. We have protected the £6.5 billion Supporting People budget, and we will invest £400 million in homelessness prevention over the next four years. We recently announced a £42.5 million boost to provide more than 1,500 new and improved bed spaces to improve hostels for rough sleepers and ensure that those coming off the streets receive the support they need. We are giving an additional £20 million to Homeless Link for a new homelessness transition fund to support the roll-out of No Second Night Out and protect vital front-line services. I echo my hon. Friend’s tribute to the valuable work done by St Mungo’s, which was also mentioned by other Members, and by St Petroc’s in his constituency.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) about the importance of affordable housing, not just in London but throughout the country. The Government have manifestly taken serious steps to tackle the chronic lack of such housing. In 2011-12 we are allocating £40 million to London boroughs to prevent homelessness and tackle rough sleeping. The Department has also transferred £8.45 million a year to the Greater London Authority for four years so that it can fund and commission pan-London rough sleeping services. They include rolling shelters, tenancy sustainment teams and outreach services which generally operate across borough boundaries.
	As was mentioned earlier, we have provided £12.5 million for Crisis, the national charity for single homeless people, for a crisis private rented sector development programme to enable the voluntary sector to set up private rented sector access schemes for single homeless people. In its first year alone, the programme will lead to the creation of more than 1,500 tenancies. Our £4.5 billion affordable homes programme is set to exceed expectations and deliver up to 170,000 new homes by 2015.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) spoke of the benefits of installing sprinklers in residential and commercial new-build properties. I listened with interest as he made his case—with great enthusiasm—and I am sure that the Department will also have noted its merits, especially given his detailed knowledge of the terrible fire at Wessex Foods in his constituency, to which he has referred before.
	My hon. Friend did not call for the introduction of new regulations, although he highlighted the fact that sprinklers can save lives, thus preventing a considerable impact on the local community. It is important to note, however, that building regulations already contain provisions for the installation of sprinkler systems in buildings where the risk is considered high enough to justify their use—such as tall blocks of flats, commercial and industrial
	premises, and assembly and recreational buildings over 30 metres high—as well as provisions for large storage buildings and care homes.
	In December last year, following an extensive public consultation exercise, the Department published the findings of a review of building regulations in a report entitled “Future changes to the Building Regulations—next steps”. The review concluded that there was no new evidence that would justify revisiting the requirements for sprinkler protection for all buildings at present.
	I commend the work being done by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) in relation to the national planning policy framework on behalf of his constituents. I assure him that his views are being taken into account in the national planning policy framework consultation, which—as all Members will know—recently closed. I am sure he appreciates that I am not in a position to pre-empt the outcome of the consultation by commenting on the issues that have been raised today, but I know that he joins me in welcoming the aim of the reforms, which is to simplify a system that most people agree has become too complex and confrontational, and to emphasise the central and critical role of the local plan to decision making. The draft national planning policy framework distils more than 1,000 pages of national policy guidelines into about 50.
	We have made clear through the housing strategy published on Monday 21 November that we must do more to provide homes for young people and growing families. We also need jobs in expanding businesses. However, that will not be at the expense of our natural and historic environment. The points made by my hon. Friend about sustainability are hugely important.
	Finally, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) that financial transparency in local government is essential. Like me, he served as a local councillor before being elected to the House, and it was interesting to hear about his experience in Swindon. The coalition Government expect councils to be transparent about their finances. We have set out our expectations in our code of recommended practice for local authorities on data transparency, which was published on 29 September 2011. As set out in the code, all local authorities in England are now expected to publish online details of any expenditure of over £500. We have been very pleased with the positive response from councils in respect of publishing this information—with one or two notable exceptions. I am also pleased that local government is continuing to forge ahead and publish a wealth of further information beyond expenditure, such as on contracts and tenders, council allowances, senior salaries and payments.
	I am aware that I have run out of time, but may I conclude by wishing all Members a very happy Christmas and a prosperous new year?

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Dawn Primarolo: Five Members wish to take part in this debate, so a time limit of six minutes has been set. May I remind the Minister that the time allotted to him to respond to the debate is up to 10 minutes? The timings this afternoon are tight, and we want to make sure that every Member who wishes to participate in debates has the opportunity to do so. We will therefore be grateful if Ministers co-operate as well.

Glyn Davies: I have spoken about wind farms in mid-Wales before, in particular in a Westminster Hall debate on 10 May, which I secured. It is the dominant issue in my constituency, and in the neighbouring constituencies of the hon. Members for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) and for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), who are not present today.
	I am sceptical about onshore wind, and have been for a long time, and an increasing number of MPs have been contacting me since the Westminster Hall debate to tell me that they agree. I do not want merely to repeat the points I made in May, but I must outline why I am sceptical about onshore wind and why I am so implacably opposed to the mid-Wales connection project.
	The cost of the huge subsidies involved is a matter of great concern, particularly to the poorest citizens in our society. Between 5 million and 6 million people are already in fuel poverty, and they are facing a choice between heating or eating. This is, in effect, a Robin Hood tax in reverse: the poorest people in society are having to pay additional sums in their energy bills and that money is being transferred to huge, powerful companies.
	There is also an impact on business competitiveness. Some 1 million young people are unemployed in our country—that is 1 million lives scarred by the scourge of unemployment. We are doing what we can to find jobs for those people, but we are making matters worse by undermining competitiveness and driving jobs overseas.
	There is also the impact on the landscape, which is particularly important to me. History in Wales teaches us the cost of thoughtless development. We had coal spills dumped all over the valleys, which this generation has had to pay to clear up. We have had irresponsible coniferous forestation, which caused massive environmental problems, and which this generation has also had to clear up.
	I am particularly concerned about the scale of what is proposed in mid-Wales—the sheer horror of it. The mid-Wales connection is based on the largest ever onshore wind development in England and Wales. Under the proposals, permission will be granted for the erection of about 500 new onshore wind turbines in mid-Wales—the final figure depends on their size—over and above the 250 that currently exist and those that already have planning approval. There will also be a 20-acre electricity substation and about 100 miles of new cable, much of it carried on steel towers 150 feet high down one of the narrow valleys that lead from mid-Wales to Shropshire. It is scarcely believable; the scale is almost impossible to comprehend. Not even the enemies of Britain over the centuries have wrought such wanton destruction on this wonderful part of the United Kingdom.
	However, today I want to speak about the impact of wind farms on democracy—that great invention that is the foundation of Britain’s constitution, and which is being disregarded so casually throughout Europe. I wanted to entitle this speech “Wind farms and democracy in mid-Wales”, but I felt that that would be deemed too tendentious.
	In his response to my speech on 10 May, the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) offered some reassuring comments. In referring to wind farm development, he said that
	“it must be in the right location, and it must have…democratic support”.
	He warmed to this theme, saying that
	“too often, onshore wind is imposed on communities that do not want it. I am keen to ensure that we address that democratic deficit…in our plans.”
	He went on, adding with a flourish that
	“it needs more democratic legitimacy than it has today, and I intend to ensure that that happens.”—[Official Report, 10 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 365-67WH.]
	I was much encouraged, not surprisingly.
	In my speech on 10 May, I also referred to a public meeting in Welshpool, to which 2,000 people came. I asked those people to come with me on a three-hour journey to Cardiff to express their views to the National Assembly. A few weeks later, they did—2,000 of them, on 37 buses. It was the best protest ever seen outside the National Assembly. That is how strongly people feel, and as a result the First Minister changed his position on the maximum cumulative impact that could be allowed in mid-Wales. He said that a new 400 kV line and a substation were not needed. We were generally encouraged, but then the giant energy companies got to work, the way dark forces do in science fiction. These massively powerful wind farm companies—leviathans fattened on public subsidy—got to work with a mixture of threats to people and community payments, which is a way of securing support for their proposals locally. A terrific amount of pressure was applied, and there was a huge lobbying exercise.
	Members can imagine my shock and disappointment at reading a BBC report two weeks ago which said that more wind farms and pylons may be built in Wales in the national interest, despite local protests. The very same Minister whom I quoted earlier was quoted as saying that
	“this is a national decision…the local views are important…but at the end of the day we are making decisions in the national interest”.
	In the national interest—that is autocracy, not democracy.
	Even more shocking is the pressure being put on local planning authorities. They are being pressured into deciding on applications by a particular date, and conditions have been ignored. They are told that all the conditions that would apply to any other planning application must not apply to wind farm developments. Transport infrastructure, ecological and environmental information, power usage—none of these factors is known, and yet they are being pressured into making decisions. It is utterly outrageous.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I call Caroline Lucas.

Caroline Lucas: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this debate. The international aim of limiting the impact of climate change to so-called acceptable consequences is, according to current trends, set to fail. That is notwithstanding the fact that the Energy and Climate Change Secretary told the House last Monday that the Durban climate conference
	“was a clear success for international co-operation.”—[Official Report, 12 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 569.]
	The executive secretary of the UN framework convention on climate change saluted the countries that had made this agreement, but the executive director of Friends of the Earth called the Durban agreement
	“an empty shell of a plan”
	that
	“leaves the planet hurtling towards catastrophic climate change.”
	Others were even less diplomatic.
	The gulf between these different reactions reflects the gulf between the reality of the current political process and the reality of what the science tells us we need to do. Indeed, it says it a lot about people’s expectations that, after so many climate talks and empty pledges over the years, an agreement “in principle” to tackling climate change from 2020 can still be hailed as an overall success.
	There has for a number of years been almost universal agreement on the need to keep climate change within a range that would limit its impact to a so-called acceptable level. That is the risk that Governments have decided they are willing to take on our behalf, and on the whole, the public have accepted this position in the belief that we will be spared from “dangerous” or “very dangerous” climate change.
	The threshold between “acceptable” and “dangerous” climate change has been the famous target of limiting warming to no more than 2° C above pre-industrial levels, which, in theory at least, is the limit that international negotiations are striving not to breach. But today the fight to ensure that the planet and its people suffer only the “acceptable” consequences of a warming world faces a double threat.
	First, Governments have so far failed to take the action needed to protect their current and future populations from the worst of climate change. Writing in the Royal Society’s journal earlier this year, a group of leading climate scientists explained that “the continued rise in greenhouse gas emissions in the past decade and the delays in a comprehensive global emissions reduction agreement have made achieving this”—
	2°—
	“target extremely difficult, arguably impossible, raising the likelihood of global temperature rises of 3°C or 4°C within this century.”
	The consequences of the latest weak and delayed agreement are laid bare by Fatih Birol, the chief economist at the International Energy Agency, who has said:
	“If we do not have an international agreement, whose effect is put in place by 2017, then the door to”—
	holding temperatures to below 2° of warming—
	“will be closed forever”.
	The second threat is that, as the latest science shows, even a 2° temperature rise is too much. Indeed, the evidence now points to the need to keep global temperature
	increases to less than 1.5° at most. So it is deeply worrying that, according to the world’s leading climate change monitoring programme, average temperatures are 1° higher than those in the 1950s. Current research released in the run-up to the Durban conference, including work from the Potsdam institute, the Met Office’s Hadley centre, the United Nations Environment Programme and the International Energy Agency, shows that on average the world is expected to warm by at least 3.5° by 2100. If that is an average, the grim reality is that some parts of the world are likely to be warming significantly more.
	I raise these issues because it is crucial that we base our climate policy on the best available science. The clearest expression of the accumulation of emissions and the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases was given by the European Environment Agency. The latest data show a concentration of 399 parts per million of CO2 equivalent. The UK’s current carbon budgets, which theoretically aim for a less than 2° temperature rise, are based on greenhouse gas concentrations stabilising at 450 parts per million of CO2 equivalent, but even that level in no way guarantees protection. The Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report makes it clear that if global CO2 equivalent concentrations are stabilised about 450 parts per million, the risk of exceeding a 2° warming is about 50%. In other words, that is the equivalent of getting on a plane with only a 50:50 chance of it not falling out of the sky.
	It is crucial that we make sure that our policy is based on the latest science. My speech is not the usual kind of intervention where we are scoring political points and focusing on short-term tactical question. I believe and I hope that I am doing something more important than that. I am putting on the record the fact that we face a climate crisis of extraordinary urgency, and if we are to have any hope of tackling it, we need to be working on the basis of the right data. So I have three questions for the Minister to answer. First, will he agree to examine the latest science, and, as necessary, work to change the UK’s domestic targets to ensure that they continue to respect the political and public consensus to limit climate change to “acceptable” consequences? Secondly, will he ensure that the Government take the action needed to limit our emissions in time and in line with our global responsibilities to prevent climate change reaching dangerous levels—and that means including the emissions that are embedded in imports? Thirdly, will he fight on the international stage to do everything possible to ensure that all Governments take the same approach? If we continue to fiddle while not only Rome, but the whole planet burns, we will go down in whatever history can follow us as the species that spent all its time monitoring its own extinction, rather than taking active steps to avoid it. The Government say that there is no plan B on the economy. That is debatable, but the fact that there is no planet B is not.

Andrew Selous: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas).
	I represent a constituency that has a large number of park homes, which I visit regularly. I am particularly grateful in this regard to a constituent, Mrs Lorraine Bond, who has a Whipsnade park home. She asked me to come to see her a couple of weeks ago, having
	corresponded with me for quite a while about the exorbitant cost of heating her home using liquid petroleum gas cylinders—this is common for many park home residents. She told me that last winter, when it was cold, she was spending £300 a month on average to keep her park home warm. It is possible to have five extremely cold months in a difficult winter in the United Kingdom, so my constituents are having to spend £1,500 to keep their park homes warm. If we bear in mind the fact that most park home residents are elderly—they tend to be pensioners—and often on low and fixed incomes, the House will realise the significance of that sum. It causes me great concern and that is why I wanted to raise the matter with the Minister today.
	The Office of Fair Trading just completed its off-grid energy report in October of this year. It describes the cylinder LPG market as
	“a mature and declining market”
	of only some 25,000 to 50,000 homes for the 47 kg cylinders of LPG. It points out that bulk LPG is more economical and involves greater ease of delivery and handling, but even bulk LPG is more expensive than other off-grid fuels such as heating oil, about which we hear a lot in this House, solid fuel or electricity. They all, in turn, are much more expensive ways of heating one’s home than a mains gas supply connection, which many rural areas do not have.
	The market for liquid petroleum gas—propane and butane in the main—is very limited. There are only three major cylinder suppliers, Calor Gas, Flogas and BP Gas, and the OFT noted that retail arrangements for cylinder LPG
	“in effect require dealers to deal exclusively with one supplier.”
	It notes, with considerable understatement, that
	“these agreements could potentially restrict competition.”
	The OFT has said that it
	“may return to these issues in the context of the wider cylinder LPG market at a later date”.
	It urgently needs to do so, because we are talking about very vulnerable people on low incomes with little choice about the way in which they heat their homes. Our current regulation is purely through the OFT and the Competition Commission, because Ofgem and Consumer Focus do not have a remit for this market.
	What can we do? The first thing we need to do is ensure that any future potential park home residents are well aware before they move in of how much it could cost to heat their home. They need to have that knowledge before they take the decision to become a park home resident.
	I was encouraged when earlier this year, on 24 March, in column 1084 of Hansard, one of the DECC Ministers said that the green deal and the energy company obligation would apply to park home residents. That is very welcome, but what has happened with the renewable heat premium payment? Some £15 million of Government money, aimed at around 25,000 homes, is due to be spent up to March next year, so have park homes been covered by that payment scheme? If they have not been, can we ensure that they are in the remaining months?
	My major question for the Minister concerns whether the renewable heat incentive, which starts in March next year, will apply to park home owners. As I hope I have outlined, they are some of our most vulnerable residents
	who are in greatest need of the new technology and financial support that the Government are bringing in through that incentive. I understand that at the moment that decision is still, in classic Government language, “subject to policy development”, so I urge my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), as the Minister on the Front Bench, to ensure that this group are covered. As I have said, they are the most vulnerable residents and they need this help.
	A couple of weeks ago, I visited a major new development in my constituency in Houghton Regis, on Sandringham drive, where every roof—the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) will be pleased to hear this—had photovoltaic cells on it, leading to water heating. It did not benefit from the renewable heat incentive, but the residents told me that they had very light heating bills last year as a result of that new technology. Above all, park home residents, who are mainly pensioners and mainly on low incomes, should be the ones to benefit from the renewable heat incentive and the technology that is coming in, which could make heating their homes much more affordable.

David Mowat: Over the next few minutes, I shall give a critique of aspects of the Government’s energy policy, but first I thank the Government for having an energy policy that it is possible to critique. Although I do not want to make a party political point, it is worth reflecting on the legacy that we inherited. On renewables, we were 25th out of the 27 EU countries, in front of only Malta and Luxembourg. Some 90% of our energy is from gas, coal and oil; 2.5% is from renewables. Furthermore, in 2010—the last year for which figures are available—the percentage of our energy that came from renewables actually fell. That is a staggering achievement, and it is worth noting.
	What the previous Government were able to do—they had some success in this—was pass legislation, some of which is important, and that is the basis of what I shall talk about today. The Climate Change Act 2008 requires us to reduce our emissions by 80% from a 1990 baseline. I will not argue about the basis for that; we have heard from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) about the importance of the 2° C target. I agree with much of what she said on that, but as she is present I just make the point that if she, like George Monbiot, had accepted that nuclear power has a part to play in meeting the target, her speech would have had more resonance.
	The Act places onerous requirements on us. Broadly speaking, reducing our use of carbon by 80% from a 1990 base requires a strategy that may embrace 25,000 wind turbines—I say that with some regret to my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), who is sitting in front of me—and 25 nuclear power stations. Of course, it would also mean a massive reduction in energy use; I think that Members on both sides of the House would agree with that, and the green deal is a great way forward. My difficulty is with the next Act that the previous Government enacted, relating to the EU 20-20-20 directive of 2009, which requires us to produce 15% of our energy from renewables over the next decade. In my judgment, that directive contradicts our needs under the Climate Change Act 2008. We must decarbonise, and not necessarily go in for a renewables frenzy.
	People might wonder why that matters, given that renewables need to be part of the mix. It matters because the emphasis on renewables has, in my judgment, meant that we have de-emphasised other low-carbon solutions that need to go ahead much more quickly, such as nuclear power and more use of gas, which I shall discuss.
	One particular aspect of the renewables frenzy brought about by the 2009 directive undermines our ability to decarbonise, and we can see it in the solar power episode that is still playing out. We made a decision to pay 40p per unit for electricity that we can sell for 8p or 9p a unit. That, of course, generates a big industry. We make that subsidy even though we are no more than 2% or 3% of the global industry for solar, and therefore realistically cannot make a big difference to how the price comes down, and even though solar power produced through photovoltaics produces more than three times more carbon than nuclear power, as was shown in a recent peer-reviewed paper from Imperial college.
	Why does all that matter? Why does it matter whether we go for renewables so hard, as opposed to going for gas, which is part of this? One of the things that we have to do is get our car and transport infrastructure off oil. We shall do that not just by electrifying, although that might be part of the solution, but by going down the route of gas cars. There are about 10 million gas cars in the world, more than 2 million of which are in Pakistan. There are nothing like that many electric cars. To say that gas is not part of the solution is just wrong.

Glyn Davies: Notwithstanding the fact that my hon. Friend is focused on putting too many wind farms in my constituency, I agree with much of what he says. Does he agree that we need to emphasise the potential of tidal power as well? I have not heard that mentioned a great deal. The Severn barrage can supply 5% of British energy needs. The potential of tidal power is massive.

David Mowat: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am not an expert in hydro power, the potential of which is very large. We have a deadline of 2017 to replace about a third of our generating capacity. To do that, we must use proven technology. That meant nuclear, but we might be late for that now. It is going to end up being gas, because gas is the default solution of a failure to invest in other technologies.
	The very real need to decarbonise is being threatened by the costs that we are incurring through a strategy that is too focused on introducing the wrong sort of renewables too quickly. Let me give an example of the likely cost of the carbon floor. A £70 per tonne price of carbon will add about £400 to £500 to the average domestic bill. That is important because fuel poverty is at 10% now. We have energy-intensive industries laying off people or not investing in this country, in the context of trying to grow manufacturing as a percentage of GDP. The risk is that that will prevent some of the things that we need to do in pursuing decarbonisation. I ask the Government to consider this point: optimising renewables is not the same as optimising decarbonisation, and we need to do the latter.

Chris Heaton-Harris: It is such a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), who is a great mind in all areas of energy and one of the more assiduous Members of the House when it comes to constituency work, I am told.
	I welcome the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who is standing in on behalf of Department of Energy and Climate Change Ministers. So far in this debate, the Government business managers have replied, probably better than most of the Ministers would have been able to do on their own, so I welcome the hon. Gentleman. He should be aware that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has a history of getting people to stand in for him in various matters, but I trust that his Christmas present from the Secretary of State will be slightly nicer than others that he might have given in the past.
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), I am suffering from a spate of wind farm applications in my constituency. For years I have been campaigning against them. We should have gone nuclear a lot earlier, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South said. There is a fantastic quote in a very good book, “Let Them Eat Carbon” by Matthew Sinclair of the Taxpayers Alliance: “Renewable energy is plagued by old problems. Whilst the wind and the sun are free, using them to supply energy when and where we need it to power a modern economy is extremely expensive.”
	We all know that, and even the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) would have to recognise it, so why do we keep trying to foist onshore wind farms on to areas of low wind speed, where they devastate areas of natural beauty? I guess it is because wind was the only game in town for a long time and its lobbyists are among the best.
	I thought that in the spirit of localism, it would be a good idea to give power to local authorities, so I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill, the Onshore Wind Turbines (Proximity of Habitation) Bill a number of months ago. It languishes, I think, at No. 13 for the next Friday sitting that we might have, so is unlikely to see the light of day in this Session. However, I would like to think that, like the gubernator of California, it will be back in some form in the future. I offer it to Ministers as a way forward in trying to solve some of the problems by letting local councils decide the correct proximity of wind turbines to habitation.
	Why am I so interested in this? In Daventry district, 19 sites are being looked at, are in the planning stage or are on appeal for wind turbines, most of which would be about 126.5 m high, roughly the size of the London Eye, and in a beautiful, green part of rolling English countryside. I am against the turbines because they simply do not work. Last December was one of the coldest periods on record, but it was also remarkable still. The turbines barely produced any energy and we needed to use all the other carbon-eating technologies.

Glyn Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that the sheer antipathy to wind farm development right across Britain is turning people against the development of renewable energy? It is transforming antipathy to onshore wind into antipathy to renewable energy.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I absolutely concur. I know from my mailbag and from the number of e-mails I receive everyday on the matter that people are turning against renewables of just about every type because wind turbines are, among other things, so badly sold. Onshore wind generation requires a 100% back-up of carbon-burning technology or nuclear energy, should the wind not blow, and in addition to the devastation of the visual environment there are the problems of noise and flicker. They are the wrong renewables choice.
	That brings me to some unbelievably bad news I received yesterday about my constituency. There was—how can I put it?—a disgraceful, vulgar, disrespectful, terrible, shameful, contemptible, detestable, dishonourable, disreputable, ignoble, mean, offensive, scandalous, shabby, shady, shocking, shoddy, unworthy, deplorable, awful, calamitous, dire, disastrous, distressing, dreadful, faulty, grim, horrifying, lamentable, lousy, mournful, pitiable, regrettable, reprehensible, rotten, sad, sickening, tragic, woeful, wretched, abhorrent, abominable, crass, despicable, inferior, odious, unworthy, atrocious, heinous, loathsome, revolting, scandalous, squalid, tawdry, cowardly, opprobrious, insulting, malevolent, scurrilous and basically stinkingly poor decision of the Planning Inspectorate to approve the Kelmarsh wind farm, which will devastate huge swathes of beautiful rural Northamptonshire. It used an old-fashioned east midlands regional plan, which I thought we had abolished in the Localism Act 2011, did not take into account any emerging policy in this area, not least the national planning policy framework, and used the targets, which the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion is so passionately attached to, of getting 20% of our energy from renewables by 2020.
	It is unbelievable that one planning inspector can overrule all elements of democracy, local and national, including parish and district council opinion, MPs, Lords and Members of the European Parliament, and say, “Well, actually, because of these particularly poor policies we have, forget democracy. This is what you are having.” That is what upsets people about the onshore wind industry. The sooner that can change, the better.
	Significant damage will be done to the local environment, and even more will be done to what my constituents might think comes with the Localism Act. If I were a Secretary of State in the Department for Energy and Climate Change and was driving down the A14, I really would put my foot down. A three-point penalty easily outweighs what I and my constituents think of him, this decision and the policy it is based on. That said, even I wish the Secretary of State and everyone else in the House a very merry Christmas.

Norman Lamb: I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful and measured contributions, including that wonderful description of the Planning Inspectorate’s recent decision. Many hon. Members will have some sympathy with the views expressed there.
	I must confess a personal interest. I am the son of a climatologist, so I spent many of my formative years learning about the natural cycles of climate, visiting sites such as medieval vineyards around Tewkesbury and so forth as friends were heading off to Torremolinos. Today, however, our focus is on man’s impact on climate and how we respond to it.
	I shall deal first with the contribution from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). The hon. Lady’s case is that the 2% target—limiting the increase of global average temperatures to 2% above pre-industrial levels—is not ambitious enough and has potentially devastating consequences. I share and the Government share her absolute concern about the need to take effective and decisive action to deal with what is an enormous challenge globally, and we do not dismiss it at all.
	The target of less than 2%, however, is likely to be at the very edge of what is possible in terms of the technological and economic implications. It also involves radical lifestyle changes, and dealing with that globally and in democracies is often very difficult.
	Achieving the 2% target globally will itself be immensely challenging. On the current trajectory, as the hon. Lady rightly said, we are looking at a 3.5° C to 4° C rise in temperature, the consequences of which certainly would be devastating, and if anything the gap is widening.

Caroline Lucas: The figure is 2° C, not 2%, but does the hon. Gentleman agree with me on the key point that runaway climate change would also require radical changes in lifestyle?

Norman Lamb: Absolutely, I do. I accept that completely, and that is why the Government are determined to take decisive action.
	The consequences, however, of a 3.5° C to 4° C rise would be devastating, including a 2 metre rise in sea levels, a massive impact on food production and so on, but to hit the 2° C target we need global emissions to peak by 2020 and, after that, to reduce by 4% annually. That target is achievable if decisive action is taken by both the developed and the developing worlds, and this Government are determined to take a lead internationally —one of the things that the hon. Lady raised specifically —in seeking to achieve it.
	Developing countries on their own are likely to account for 60% of emissions by 2020 owing to rapid development, and the Government recognise that the European Union must show leadership, so we are pressing for a 30% 2020 emissions reduction target, rather than the current 20%.
	To answer the hon. Lady’s specific question about whether we need to review the target level, I note that the Cancun conference agreed to a review of the science to see whether to adjust the target and whether the 2° C target is adequate to prevent the disastrous consequences of climate change. I acknowledge what she said about the outcome of the recent Durban conference, but it did make progress on the design of that review and on the steps, including negotiating a new global agreement, to get the global community back on track to achieve at least the 2° C goal. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change for playing a key role in the Durban negotiations, which have taken things forward.
	All that sets the context—the imperative of building a low-carbon economy—for dealing with the contributions from the hon. Members for Warrington South (David Mowat), for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies). Not only do we need to reduce carbon emissions because of the imperative of tackling climate change, but we face the massive challenge of energy security.
	I shall deal first with the hon. Member for Warrington South, who criticised the focus on renewables and sought to concentrate on the optimisation of decarbonisation, arguing for the importance of nuclear and gas in the short term. We face the immediate and remarkable challenge that nearly one third of our energy supplies will be going off-grid in the next decade. That is because of decisions already taken. Nuclear cannot deliver in that time frame. There are disadvantages in relying heavily on imported gas because it makes us more vulnerable to risks with regard to security of supply, fluctuating and volatile cost, and availability of supply. To replace the lost capacity and to hit challenging emissions targets, we need a new supply quickly, and wind and other renewables are a crucial part of that. Over the longer term, the Government have no intention of favouring one form of low-carbon energy production over another. Our intention is to secure a level playing field for low-carbon technologies competing with one another. Tidal power, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, should be given its chance along with other technologies.
	The Government have already issued a White Paper on electricity market reform. That is an important way to deliver the change that we need to secure proper competition between low-carbon technologies. It will mean that a level playing field is introduced by 2020, and it covers nuclear, carbon capture and storage, and renewables. The carbon plan published on 1 December, which sets out how we will meet the requirements of the fourth carbon budget—between 2022 and 2027—does not favour one form of production over another but offers different scenarios and different combinations within the whole mix. We are not looking to lock in any one form of production. The Government have stressed the importance of reducing energy demand and of improved energy conservation. That is why our green deal is so important, as is the radical step of introducing smart electricity and gas meters across every home. We do, however, stress the need for immediate and decisive action.

David Mowat: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Norman Lamb: I will not, because I am conscious of time constraints and think that I must press on.
	The hon. Members for Daventry and for Montgomeryshire discussed wind energy. First, it is important to recognise that this does cause concern for many people; we are all familiar with that in our own constituencies. Those concerns cannot just be dismissed. There are inevitably tensions between the absolute imperative of reducing carbon in our economy and the concerns of local people. It is important to recognise, though, that applications are turned down on landscape grounds. The key is to find appropriate locations in terms of landscape and wind speed.
	The hon. Member for Daventry raised concerns about the efficiency and effectiveness of wind energy. Wind energy is generated for between 70% and 80% of the time. It is already providing about 2.9% of total energy generation—that was the figure for the second quarter of 2011—and it represented approximately 31% of the overall renewable electricity generated in that period. It
	is already delivering results. The costs of onshore wind are expected to come down by about 8% to 9% between now and 2030. That will result in support for onshore wind reducing by 10% from April 2013. The hon. Gentleman also raised concerns about the proximity of wind turbines to where people live and the importance of local decision making. The Government, through the Localism Act 2011, want to give people in their communities a greater say in the decisions that are taken.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire raised particular concerns about what is happening in his own community. I pay tribute to the passion and commitment that he has demonstrated on this issue over a long period. He will be aware that the location of wind farms in mid-Wales is down to TAN 8—technical advice note 8—which is the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly Government. Any changes or variations to TAN 8 are their responsibility rather than that of the UK Government. Six applications for developments of over 50 MW are currently in train in mid-Wales, and we are waiting on the response of the local authority, Powys county council, which is due by the end of March next year. The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) has written to the authority recently—last week, I think—to extend the deadline to the end of September so that it can conduct its assessment properly and respond fully to the proposals. That extension is subject to approval by the applicants.
	I should also mention the Localism Act 2011, which has removed decision making powers from the Infrastructure Planning Commission. That body has dealt with applications for developments of more than 50 MW since April 2010. It was introduced by the previous Government and it was an appointed, unaccountable quango. This Government have returned responsibility to Ministers, thereby reinstating clear accountability.
	I want to reiterate the value and importance of wind in meeting climate change targets, for the reasons that I have already expressed. It has to be part of the mix. I stress its economic benefits in Wales and elsewhere. Wind energy contributes £158 million directly to the Welsh economy every year in turnover, employment and expenditure. It is responsible for more than 800 full- time jobs in Wales, and that is expected to rise to 1,000 next year. That must be considered.
	Finally, I will deal with the contribution of the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). I am grateful to him for raising the concerns brought to his attention by Mrs Lorraine Bond. The amount that she and others have to pay over the winter just to heat their homes should concern us all. He is right that the recent Office of Fair Trading report highlighted that cylinder liquefied petroleum gas—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Minister, you have now been speaking for 12 minutes, which is more than “up to 10 minutes”. I would therefore be grateful if you brought your remarks to a conclusion as quickly as possible, and if you could remember to address the Chamber, not the people sitting behind you.

Norman Lamb: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will bring my remarks to a close quickly.
	The concern is that the consumers we are talking about are mostly on very low incomes, are often elderly and struggle with their heating costs. I will talk about the steps that the Government are taking. The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Wealden wrote to the OFT recently, asking it to consider how to make markets work more effectively for vulnerable consumers.
	Park homes will shortly be able to receive help under the Government’s main home energy efficiency scheme—the carbon emissions reduction target. CERT requires all domestic energy suppliers with more than 50,000 consumers to reduce householders’ carbon dioxide emissions by promoting low-carbon energy solutions. Under CERT, suppliers are free to decide what measures to promote. I recognise that suppliers have chosen not to install measures in significant quantities to date, but there have been successful trials this year of park home insulation solutions that significantly reduce energy use. Those trials have shown what can be achieved. Solid wall insulation for park homes will get a formal carbon score under CERT, which will incentivise energy suppliers to promote these measures to park home residents during the final year of the CERT scheme.
	Finally, I have taken on board the concerns raised by the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire about the renewable heat incentive. It is clearly important to ensure that that matter is considered fully. The concerns that he has raised will be taken on board by the Department. Every effort will be made to ensure that these vulnerable consumers are protected as well as possible.
	I thank hon. Members for their contributions and wish everybody a very happy Christmas.

HEALTH

Dawn Primarolo: Five Members are listed to take part in this debate. There is a time limit on Back-Bench speeches of six minutes. I remind Ministers that this is a Back-Bench debate and that the Backbench Business Committee has recommended that the time available for Ministers should be up to 10 minutes. Each time they go over that, they take time away from Back Benchers.

Tracey Crouch: It is a pleasure to open the health section of the Christmas Adjournment debate.
	Albert Einstein famously said:
	“It is strange to be known so universally and yet to be so lonely.”
	At a time of extreme population growth, greater connectivity created by technological advances and the ability to sustain friendships around the globe, it is perhaps bizarre to think about the worrying consequences of social isolation, yet it is incumbent on us to do so because increasing levels of loneliness are making elderly people in particular incredibly vulnerable.
	More than 1 million people aged over 65 say that they feel socially or emotionally lonely all or most of the time. It is heartbreaking that while many of us will be spending the festive season with our family and friends, 500,000 older people will spend this Christmas day alone. Sadly, that seclusion is not confined to the Christmas season. Chillingly, it is part of the day-to-day life of many older people.
	If people more cynical than your good self, Madam Deputy Speaker, are wondering why I am spending valuable parliamentary time talking about a natural human emotion, they do not understand the severe social, health and financial consequences of loneliness. Researchers rate it as a higher health risk than lifelong smoking or obesity. Associated physical and mental health conditions include sleep deprivation, a weakened immune system, higher blood pressure, an increased risk of dementia and intense levels of depression.
	By raising the profile of the Campaign to End Loneliness today in this short debate, I hope to increase awareness of the scandalous isolation of older people. That is not just a sad indication of community breakdown but, to be brutally frank, has a long-term cost for our social service and health budgets. It can be halted through better state and voluntary intervention.
	No one body can solve the problem. In fact, it is one for everyone in society to tackle, from local and central Government to the voluntary sector, and of course not forgetting us as individuals. However, the state has a significant role to play and is often best placed to act as the main co-ordinator.
	At local level, the police, fire services and GPs are considered the most trusted bodies by older people, and therefore they can identify those most in need through their everyday activities. There is a fantastic example of that in Manchester, with police community support officers knocking on the doors of older people with a specific remit of reaching out to those who would otherwise slip under the radar. Likewise, Merseyside fire and rescue service, which comes into contact with
	people when it fits fire alarms or attends emergencies, has been using those occasions to identify those whom they feel are isolated and to flag them up to the appropriate body.
	In my own constituency, Tonbridge and Malling council often finds that housing register applicants state that they want to move because they are lonely and feel isolated. That admission helps to identify those in need, and then the support and befriending services of local voluntary organisations are deployed. One such service is the “Beat Project”, which is funded by the Snodland Partnership and organises an informal coffee and chat group every week. It specifically seeks to engage people who would not normally join organised groups in the town. Many older people now attend, including a group from a local dementia nursing home. Many report that the event is often their only social contact with the outside world.
	Medway council runs similar events through its older people’s partnership and its work with the WRVS. Through statutory, voluntary and community sector partners, it has sought to engage with older people across the local authority area to improve mental and physical well-being, create opportunities for intergenerational involvement and develop social networks to enable older people to lead full and active lives.
	The last Government declared in the 2007 concordat for social care, “Putting People First” that the alleviation of loneliness and isolation should be a major priority. I completely agree with that intention. Encouragingly, the current Government have put a welcome emphasis on improving community connections and well-being, which will help to meet that priority. However, any Government who are serious about enabling well-being must acknowledge the problem of loneliness as one of the targets of their activities. I hope the Minister will indicate today how far the Government intend to go in measuring loneliness as part of the well-being index.
	There are many good schemes out there that can combat isolation—too many for me to mention in my remaining time. They all require one more thing, which is the ability to reach to those who remain in isolation. That is where the statutory services should help. Better co-ordination cannot be underestimated as the means of solving the wider problem of loneliness.
	In the past I have planned to spend Christmas alone, but acquaintances from a local bar took in this particular waif and stray and have remained friends since. This year, Abbeyfield Kent and Age Concern Kent are opening up their doors and offering Christmas dinner to pensioners who would otherwise spend Christmas alone. I hope that that will create future social networks for those attending.
	Loneliness is not just for Christmas, but this seems to me a perfectly good time to highlight in the House and beyond the worthwhile campaign to end loneliness among older people. As Mother Theresa said:
	“Loneliness and the feeling of being unwanted is the most terrible poverty.”

Alison Seabeck: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about the accessibility of services and entertainment for people who are deaf
	or hard of hearing. Several of the issues cut across other Departments, and I hope that the Minister will be tolerant, but I also hope that she will pass on my remarks to the relevant Departments.
	Some 10 million people in the UK have some form of hearing loss, which is around 11,500 in every constituency. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) spoke about loneliness, and those who are deaf or hard of hearing can feel particularly isolated. It is sad that even in 2011 people with hearing loss still face unnecessary barriers to everyday activities, such as banking, shopping and watching television. I wish to highlight some of the positive steps that can be taken by businesses and Government to improve accessibility, and the forward-looking solutions that would guarantee accessible television entertainment for people who are deaf or hard of hearing.
	Hearing loss is often referred to as an invisible impairment, and it can present a significant challenge if colleagues or service providers do not know that someone is struggling to hear. I declare an interest as I lost all hearing in one ear at the age of 16 after contracting mumps. My recent change in workplace seating arrangements has caused enormous problems, because the Speaker’s Chair is now on my deaf side, and I run the real risk of not hearing the Speaker’s instructions. Difficulty hearing in a debating chamber is an unusual problem, so I will consider some more common activities.
	Imagine someone with hearing loss who begins their day by telephoning their bank. They will be met with a series of pre-recorded voice messages, which are now a familiar feature of all helplines, but present huge problems for people who cannot hear clearly. All the numbers whizz by and people miss hearing what they all mean. People with hearing loss would benefit from a clear, early option to be put through to an operator who has received deaf awareness training, and I urge companies to consider implementing this routinely.
	Someone who has been unable to get through to their bank by phone might try to go and speak to them in person. Unfortunately for people with hearing loss, this still does not guarantee that they will be able to communicate successfully. There are 2 million hearing aid users in the UK, and a fully functioning induction loop is often the only way to guarantee somebody effective communication. However, in a recent survey by the excellent organisation Action on Hearing Loss, 86% of services were found to be inaccessible for hearing aid users. Where organisations had a loop system, it was often not working, it was not turned on, or staff were not trained in its use. Worryingly, more than 60% of the 1,500 premises visited did not have a loop system fitted at all.
	There are any number of day-to-day examples I could give, but time does not allow, so I will turn to the end of a typical day, when someone might look forward to catching up with their favourite television programme. Surely, in the comfort of their own home, they will not be limited by their hearing loss. Sadly, even in the 21st century, against a backdrop of vast technological developments, it is still very likely that the chosen television programme will not be accompanied by subtitles. This is particularly true of programmes delivered on catch-up services over the internet, where there are currently no quotas for access services. This is despite the fact that in a recent survey three quarters of Action on Hearing Loss members said they used subtitles, with 43% using them all the time.
	It would be an effective forward-looking solution if people with sensory loss could benefit from the inclusion of quotas for access services on all television programmes, regardless of the platform through which they are delivered. That would be in line with existing quotas for terrestrial television. New legislation, which I think the Government plan to introduce, should also ensure that technology is future-proofed. Believe it or not, subtitles were not initially available on high-definition TV, for example. That is quite astonishing—and they were only recently introduced on the public broadcasting HD channels. I urge Ministers not to pass up any opportunity to improve the situation through legislation.
	I hope that this afternoon’s debate has demonstrated how important accessibility to services and entertainment is for people who are deaf or hard of hearing. As the population ages, the number of people with hearing loss in the UK will continue to rise. I therefore urge Ministers to cut across Departments to ensure that easy access to services and entertainment for people with hearing loss becomes the norm, not the exception.
	In the last few seconds, I want to get an unrelated point on the record. I would really like the Government to look at how the administration process works, following the experience of Plymouth Argyle. There are genuine issues that need to be addressed, either by Ministers or by a Select Committee of this House, such as whether the creditors get the best value and whether the staff involved at the time are also protected.
	Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you, all Members of this House and all the staff, who support us so fantastically throughout the year, a very happy Christmas.

Pauline Latham: I rise today to talk about the east midlands cancer drugs fund, because I have had many dealings with this organisation, none of them very satisfactory. The last such dealing was today, although I would like to start my story, as it were, with my attempts over some months to get Avastin for a constituent of mine. She has already funded more than £60,000-worth of the drug herself. She has sold her car, used her retirement money and sold her heirlooms, and she now has no money left, yet still the east midlands cancer drugs fund will not give her Avastin, because—it says—there is no proof that it works. However, she is living proof that it works, because she has been taking it for two years. It costs her £1,600 every three weeks, and nobody can afford that sort of money. I also have another affected constituent, whom I saw on Friday, but because she is smaller than the other lady it costs her only £1,300—a real snip.
	I am appalled at the way those patients are being treated. The reason why we are talking about a second-line treatment is that the first line failed. However, those patients do not choose the first line, because they rely on the consultants to give them the right drug in the first place. When that drug fails, the consultant puts the patient on a drug that works, but in this case, those in the east midlands are not allowed to have that drug funded by the NHS. However, patients can have it funded in the west midlands, the north-east and East Anglia, along with four other trusts.
	I first wrote to the east midlands cancer drugs fund about this case on 28 September. Hon. Members should remember that it is supposed to reply within 10 working
	days, but in this case it did not. As Avastin is not a priority drug, and as my constituent is not a priority person, the fund will reply at its leisure. I wrote on 28 September, but the first I heard from the fund was on 4 November, when, after pushing the organisation, I received a letter from the medical director of NHS Midlands and East, which said that that body would have the ultimate view on whether the drug could be prescribed. The letter also said:
	“I can, however, ask the Clinical Panel to review”
	my constituent’s
	“case and have asked the Clinical Lead to convene an urgent meeting. This meeting will consider clinical effectiveness evidence in accordance with the principles underpinning the East Midlands Cancer Drugs Fund. I will also ask the Panel to reconsider the evidence in the context that other parts of the country have reached a different conclusion regarding the efficacy of avastin as a second line treatment. The Chair of the Clinical Panel will inform me of the outcome of its deliberations”.
	That was on 4 November, after I had written on 28 September. That panel has not met. Why not? Because those responsible cannot get the right people together. They convened a meeting, but they asked the wrong people to come to it, so they decided to abandon that. Eventually, after several e-mails, on 10 and 14 November, they let me know that they were urgently considering a meeting, but had not had one yet, and they still have not. Apparently, the people who make the decisions are informing them by e-mail what they think of this case—everything is being reviewed by e-mail.
	It is getting close to Christmas, as we are all aware. On 30 November I was told that I would hear by the end of that week. I have not heard anything. Now I am told that I will hear by the end of this week. This is completely and utterly unacceptable for my two constituents, who could die because of the irresponsible and inefficient way in which the organisation works. Fortunately, they are not doing so; they are getting good treatment, and both of their tumour levels have decreased from 40 to 5 while using that drug. That shows that it works, and I do not understand the reluctance of the east midlands cancer drugs fund to prescribe it.

Jo Swinson: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and I apologise for not being here for the beginning of her speech. I was on the telephone to the consultant of one of my constituents who is terminally ill and who would love to get ipilimumab prescribed. Unfortunately, that is not possible. Sadly for constituents in Scotland, there is no cancer drugs fund there because the Scottish Government have different priorities from those of the coalition Government here. I understand the hon. Lady’s frustration with the way in which the fund is being administered in her area, but would she at least agree that the existence of such a fund is a real benefit to people in England? I wish that that could be the case in Scotland.

Pauline Latham: Yes, everyone should have a cancer drugs fund, but those funds should be reactive to what works for people. If I have time, I want to talk about ipilimumab too. It is a difficult name to say, but it is also known as Yervoy. The hon. Lady should talk to the Government in Scotland and ask them to do what we are doing here in this country. They have devolved
	powers that were voted for by this House—and which I do not agree with—but they have them, and they must make their own decisions.
	The cancer drugs fund in the east midlands is not fit for purpose. It is not working for the benefit of patients. The people involved say that they need the necessary clinical knowledge of these cases, but they already have it. The consultant has written to them, as have I, and they can see that those patients are still alive. They are still failing miserably, however, to help my two constituents, who will die if they do not get the drug. I hope that the Minister will contact those people and ask them to work more efficiently and effectively to help those patients who rely desperately on them to provide the necessary drugs.
	I want briefly to talk about Yervoy, which is also known by that other name that I cannot pronounce. It is used to treat malignant melanoma. I have to declare an interest, in that my brother died of malignant melanoma 11 years ago next month, before this drug was discovered. It is the first new treatment for malignant melanoma for 30 years. More people are dying of malignant melanoma than ever before, and it is on the increase. I believe that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence should recommend that people should have that drug. I have heard stories of people in their 30s with young children getting the condition, and there is no hope for their future. As a responsive listening Government, we should be ensuring that those people get the drugs that they require.

Keith Vaz: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham). I am sure that the whole House will wish her well in her pursuit of those cases on behalf of her constituents.
	I want to talk about diabetes. I discovered that I had type 2 diabetes only a few years ago, when I went to visit my local GP. He had asked me to open a diabetes awareness day. I turned up, and blood was taken from my finger. People like taking blood from politicians. I was told that someone would ring me the next day to tell me whether I had managed to get into the local newspaper. Dr Farooqi rang me. He said that the good news was that I was on the front page of the Leicester Mercury, and that the bad news was that I had type 2 diabetes.
	With diabetes, we are facing a health tsunami. There are now 2.8 million people in the UK suffering from the condition. Worldwide, the figure is a staggering 346 million. It is the fifth most common cause of death in the world, and it is undoubtedly a health concern of epidemic proportions. The International Diabetes Federation predicts that if the situation is allowed to continue on its current path, 522 million people worldwide—one in every 10—will have diabetes by 2030.
	In recent months the work of diabetes charities has gained a significant momentum. I would like to congratulate the International Diabetes Federation, led by its president Jean-Claude Mbaya, on hosting the World Diabetes Congress in Dubai, which I attended and at which I spoke briefly. We are going to have a British president of the federation in two years’ time—Sir Michael Hirst.
	I wish him well. I also commend the work of Diabetes UK and its chief executive, Baroness Young, as well that of a charity in my constituency that I had the honour to help establish, Silver Star. It came here to test MPs for diabetes. It has worked in partnership with organisations, including the
	Leicester Mercury
	,
	and helped to light up its iconic headquarters in blue on world diabetes day, 14 November.
	For the purposes of this debate I shall refer to type 2 diabetes, which is the type that 90% of people with diabetes around the world have. Diabetes is currently the leading cause of blindness, amputation, renal disease and cardiovascular disease. On average it reduces life expectancy by 10 years. Each week 100 people with diabetes lose a toe, foot or lower limb due to the condition. In 2010 an estimated 4,200 people lost their sight due to diabetic retinopathy. This figure increases by 1,280 a year. Only last week we were told in a Government-commissioned report that 24,000 people with diabetes are dying avoidably each year because they do not receive the right health care or do not manage their condition properly.
	It is estimated that diabetes care accounts for 10% of the NHS annual budget—£9 billion a year, or £1 million an hour. Diabetes prescriptions account for 7% of NHS costs. These staggering costs will only increase unless this illness is prevented and contained.
	We are now 12 days from new year’s eve—a time to make new resolutions. I urge the Minister—the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Angela Watkinson)—to adopt my five resolutions. The first is to increase the level of education and awareness—including among ourselves: 10% of those sitting in the Chamber today will have diabetes without knowing it. And anyone walking into the Tea Room, as I have just done, will be offered every sweet and chocolate they could possibly want, and drinks loaded with sugar.
	We need to make sure that, particularly in Olympics year, we get people to engage in physical activity. We also need to adopt the “fat tax” adopted in Denmark to try to make manufacturers responsible for what they sell. We must ensure that there is universal screening. Although the Government are currently committed to screening, it is not as widespread as we would like. Between April and June this year only 2.7% of eligible patients received a health check.
	I want to ensure that we look carefully for ways to prevent the south Asian community in particular from getting diabetes. They suffer more from contracting it, as they are particularly susceptible to it as a group.
	Finally, speaking as someone who has to get a prescription from my GP every month, I believe it absurd that there are 15 separate companies all producing different blood glucose testing strips. I often go to the pharmacy to get my prescription, but they give me the wrong strip for the wrong machine. It is vital that we ensure that there is one common strip.
	Diabetes is a worldwide problem. My message is simple: no more declarations, no more fine words, no more summits: if we are to try to save lives, we need action now.

Sarah Wollaston: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz).
	I want to speak on behalf of community hospitals, both locally in my own constituency and nationally on behalf of CHANT—Community Hospitals Acting Nationally Together. Before coming to the House, I worked as a GP in rural Dartmoor, covering the smallest hospital in England at Moretonhampstead. I was privileged to see first hand how a personal and compassionate service transformed the care and saved the lives of so many of my former patients.
	We know that we need to change the way that health care is delivered. As we all live longer and with multiple complex medical problems, we need to focus on preventing admissions to acute hospitals in the first place. Community hospitals are ideally placed to deliver that care. There are four in my constituency: Totnes, Brixham, South Hams in Kingsbridge, and Dartmouth. I pay tribute to all their staff, and to the volunteers in the leagues of friends.
	The leagues of friends are a vital resource in all our constituencies. They raise an incredible amount of money—between £7 million and £8 million has been raised in south Devon alone over the last decade—and are made up entirely of volunteers who co-ordinate fundraising events as well as managing donations and legacies, and then plan how those projects should be managed in the future.
	As a direct result of voluntary contributions, patients in South Hams hospital are able to have their chemotherapy locally rather than making the long, arduous journey to Plymouth, and in Brixham, the league of friends has donated £200,000 towards the new hospital ward. There have been numerous projects in Dartmouth and Totnes, all improving dignity, privacy and comfort and raising money for equipment. However, the contributions go way beyond funding. Local residents volunteer their services on the wards for both patients and visitors, and directly improve the quality of care.
	I am delighted that the coalition has repeatedly expressed its commitment to community hospitals, and has recognised the vital role that they play in rural areas in particular. However, I should like the Department of Health to respond to a number of concerns and uncertainties so that these much-loved community resources can be put on an even stronger footing. The issues that I wish to raise are the ownership of the community hospital estate and the operation of the current tariff system.
	I have heard from some leagues of friends that they are holding back funding of projects as a result of concerns expressed by some of their members about the future ownership of community hospitals. They are afraid that money raised by local communities and invested in local services could end up being lost to those communities should the ownership of the estates pass elsewhere. I know that the ownership of the premises in south Devon will pass to Torbay care trust, but concern is still being expressed at a high level in my local NHS about the possibility that the future ownership arrangements will inadvertently decouple community infrastructures from the communities that they serve. Those communities seek reassurance that if for any reason the provider trust that owns a community hospital relinquishes ownership of a building, selling it without reinvesting in an improved and equally local facility, the funds raised by local communities will be returned to them in full.

Harriett Baldwin: There are three fine community hospitals in my constituency: Pershore, Tenbury and Malvern. My hon. Friend may wish to invite her constituents to visit the Pershore hospital, which is owned by the district council and operated by the NHS care trust. It is an interesting model.

Sarah Wollaston: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. There is an understandable fear that many premises in the most stunning locations, which have been bequeathed to their communities by local benefactors, could end up being sold off with communities powerless to intervene. I want to touch on some of the alternative models. Communities are reassured that for the time being there is a clear directive providing that in future only NHS organisations may own the estate, but I agree with my hon. Friend that local models can provide alternatives. NHS ownership may, in some circumstances, create difficulties, and inhibit the development of hospitals’ full potential. For example, the Community Hospitals Association is concerned that in some areas management may pass to mental health organisations with little experience of managing community hospitals. There is also a concern that passing management to predominantly secondary-care-focused trusts could cause the hospitals’ interests to be sidelined.
	In many parts of the country, social enterprises have been formed to provide community services, but currently they cannot own and invest in premises, and nor can GPs acting as commissioners. May I ask the Minister to look into how ownership arrangements could be made more flexible in order to provide local solutions, while at the same time guaranteeing to local people that the value of their assets will be safeguarded for their communities? I hope that all our leagues of friends will then feel confident enough to continue to invest for the future.
	Let me briefly raise the issue of the system of tariff payments. As the Minister will know, currently the tariff is not fairly distributed, which means that community hospitals are often not funded for the provision of step-down care. The acute hospital receives all the funding irrespective of how long the patient remains in its care, although community hospitals are ideally placed to provide safe step-down services. I therefore that hope the Minister will give an update on how and when the tariff will be reformed to assist community hospitals to offer the full range of services they wish to provide.
	The main focus should be on avoiding the need for acute hospital admissions in the first place. Community hospitals have a key role to play in providing many services, not just in-patient and palliative care. I join the Community Hospitals Association in calling for more investment in research and evaluation of their role and contribution to high-quality care and the wider social care economy.
	Finally, I wish all Members and staff of the House a very happy Christmas.

Angela Watkinson: May I start by saying that I appreciate the waiving of my customary Whiply silence, albeit temporarily, to enable me to participate in this debate?
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for raising the important issue of the loneliness and isolation that can affect older people. I welcome the good work done by Independent Age, Age UK Oxfordshire, Counsel and Care, and the WRVS on the campaign to end loneliness. We are living longer, healthier lives. We should celebrate that, and seek to unlock the rich potential of our older population, as well as promoting their well-being.
	We recognise the terrible impact that isolation and loneliness can have on people’s health and well-being. We know that multi-professional collaboration from a health and social care perspective on the needs of older people—including recognising isolation and those at risk from it—will make a huge contribution to keeping older people well and independent in their own homes, and to helping to maintain a decent quality of life for them. Of course, combating loneliness and isolation cannot be the job of health and care services alone. A range of services must be involved, including transport, housing and leisure.
	We recently concluded the caring for our future engagement exercise, and we will produce a White Paper and a progress report on funding. That is planned for spring 2012. The engagement exercise considered six areas: quality and work force; personalisation and choice; shaping local care services; prevention and early intervention: integration; and the role of financial services. Throughout this engagement exercise we heard from a wide range of organisations, carers and people who use services, and the issue of loneliness and isolation among older people was raised.
	Under the provisions of the Health and Social Care Bill currently before Parliament, local health and wellbeing boards will take responsibility for producing the joint strategic needs assessment and a local health and well-being strategy. I pay tribute to the London borough of Havering; it has shown great commitment in setting up its health and wellbeing board and it has already made significant arrangements for taking on this important new role. I also applaud the good work done by Age Action Alliance, an independent alliance of organisations working together to improve the lives of older people. It is aiming to prevent deprivation in later life, as well as challenging age discrimination and seeking to make older people feel valued and able to contribute to their local communities and the wider society. We look forward to the ideas that will emerge from that alliance.
	We are doing everything we can, and we also support the efforts of others, to ensure that older people have access to all the help they need to reduce social isolation. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.
	The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) made a thoughtful contribution about the understanding, patience and sympathy people with hearing loss need but do not always receive. She described the limitations on everyday activities such as using the telephone, and the absence of subtitles on television, which greatly disadvantage those with hearing loss. I shall refer those matters to the relevant Minister. We hope to improve the quality of life of people with hearing loss.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) raised concerns about two constituents who were unable to receive specific cancer drugs under
	their NHS treatment from the East Midlands strategic health authority. She has made her feelings very clear. The health authority will have heard her and will wish to respond with some urgency; and the Secretary of State will, I am sure, expect that to happen.
	I thank the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) for his question and his continued support for diabetes prevention and improving outcomes for people with diabetes. We pay particular tribute to his work through Silver Star, a charity he founded in Leicestershire that is invaluable in tackling diabetes within south Asian communities. As president of the Havering branch of Diabetes UK, I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the late Sue Braeger, who sadly died recently. As chairman of the Havering branch, Sue was a formidable campaigner on diabetes issues, especially the management of diabetes medication for pupils in schools. She will be a hard act to follow.
	We have learned this year—in the last few months, in fact—that nearly 3 million people in the United Kingdom have diabetes, a number that grows year on year. Worse, 24,000 people each year die unnecessarily from the disease—deaths that could have been prevented with better management and care. Much progress has been made in diabetes care since the publication of the national service framework in 2001, but prevention and early diagnosis remain a Government priority.
	Next year, the National Audit Office and the NHS leadership team will be reviewing progress and considering whether there is need for further work, co-ordinated at a national level. Any such work would of course seek to reinforce and support activity led by clinicians at local level to improve outcomes for people living with diabetes.
	We will also depend on the NHS health check programme, which has the potential to prevent many cases of type 2 diabetes and identify thousands more cases earlier. We will be continuing the change for life campaign, which raises awareness of the importance of maintaining a healthy weight and being physically active. As type 2 diabetes is linked to both obesity and inactivity, these public health initiatives are crucial.
	For people diagnosed with diabetes, our priorities for treatment and care are to improve quality of life and reduce complications, and as a result to reduce cost. People with diabetes account for 15% of in-patient hospital beds in England. Their hospital treatment costs £600 million a year more than that for patients admitted without diabetes. Poor management of diabetes and insulin leads to emergency admissions and readmissions, and increased lengths of hospital stay. Poor care can also lead to deaths and permanent disability, with an estimated 80% of the 73 lower-limb amputations suffered each week by people with diabetes considered preventable.
	The NAO will be reporting next summer on its study of the management of diabetes services. We expect it to provide robust recommendations on improving services and outcomes for patients and the public, and we look forward to seeing the results.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) raised the important issue of the role of community hospitals and leagues of friends. I should like to assure her that the Government are committed to helping the NHS work better by extending best practice on improving discharge from acute hospitals, and increasing access to care and treatment in the community. Community hospitals
	can be an important part of delivering this, especially in rural areas, providing both planned and unplanned acute care and diagnostic services closer to home. Community hospitals support best practice in admission avoidance and provide a range of services, from treating minor injuries to intensive rehabilitation. Subject to the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill through Parliament, clinical commissioning groups will be responsible for securing the best health care and health outcomes for their patients and locality.
	The Department announced on 4 August that NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts will also be given the chance to acquire estate from primary care trusts, including the community hospital estate. PCTs have reviewed and provisionally agreed lists of property for transfer to NHS bodies, and those will shortly be approved by the Department of Health. It is expected that the actual transfers of estate will commence in 2012. I know that this is a concern of my hon. Friend, but it is not expected that these changes will affect the role or function of local league of friends’ volunteers, who provide such valuable and important services in community hospitals around the country
	The Government are also committed to increasing the scope of a more transparent rules-based funding system, where money follows the patient. Since its introduction, the payment by results national tariff has been mainly restricted to treatments provided in acute hospitals. We want to change that, but in a way that supports the delivery of high-quality services. That will not be easy, as there are significant challenges for us to overcome, such as making sure that activity that takes place in community settings is recorded and reported, as this is essential to plan services and drive payments, but we are making good progress. From April 2012, we will introduce the first ever tariffs for post-discharge care, with transparent prices to give more certainty about funding. I hope that that sets my hon. Friend’s mind at rest.
	Finally, may I take this opportunity, Mr Deputy Speaker, to wish everybody the season’s greetings?

Lindsay Hoyle: Absolutely, and I am sure that it is warmly welcomed with Christmas and the new year upon us.
	May I say that we have reduced the time limit to five minutes as we come to the general debate?

GENERAL MATTERS

Chris Skidmore: I wish to discuss history teaching in schools, because the study of history in schools has reached an all-time low. Last year, for the first time, the proportion of pupils being entered for history GCSE dropped beneath 30%, but the situation is actually far worse than that. Yesterday, I released a report, “History in Schools: A School Report”, which reveals that in vast areas of the country—often in the most deprived areas of our nation—history is being forgotten entirely. In 77 local authorities fewer than one in five pupils is passing history GCSE, but we need to break the figures down and examine individual local authorities, because in places such as Knowsley under 8% of pupils are passing history GCSE. Only four pupils in the whole of that local authority area passed A-level history. In 2010, 159 schools in this country did not enter a single pupil for history GCSE. We must address the situation urgently.
	Often it is the Daily Mail or academics who discuss what type of history should be studied in schools, whose history should be studied, how history should be studied in the curriculum, whether we should have a narrative form of history or a more interpretive form of history that looks at sources, and whether history should be seen as a framework of facts. The Government are instituting a curriculum review, and we welcome that. I hope that it will examine the process whereby history is studied in bite-sized chunks and pupils do not get a sense of a narrative framework of history—they dot around from ancient Egypt to the Victorians, then on to the Tudors and off to 20th century history. Although we can debate whose history and what type of history should be studied, we should not deny that history is a crucial subject that binds us as one nation. However, it is becoming a subject of two nations, and that is the issue that I wish to raise with the House.
	Britain is dangerously isolated in Europe—and not for a good reason— because we are the only nation apart from Albania that does not make the study of history compulsory beyond 14. I do not believe that we should be in that club, so I put my case to the Government that although the curriculum review is ongoing and will carry on until 2014, there has never been a more compelling time to make history a compulsory subject to study to 16. If I was to tell the Minister what my ideal Christmas present would be, as the vice-chair of the all-party group on archives and history I would say that it would be to make the study of history compulsory to 16 for all pupils. I wish everyone a happy Christmas.

Denis MacShane: What a pleasure it is to follow a speech from a Member on the Government Benches that I would have been honoured and delighted to have made myself.
	I want to talk a little about the history of the Arab countries, because exactly one year ago a humble vegetable seller, Mohammed Bouazizi, set himself on fire in the small town of Sidi Bouzid in Tunisia, protesting at his humiliation by the state. That act set off what we now call the Arab spring, a process of revolutionary change that today remains as unclear as the revolutions of 1789 or 1917 remained unclear 12 months after the storming of the Bastille or the Winter palace.
	Sadly, we are seeing how history repeats itself, not, as Marx wrote, first as tragedy and then as farce, but as tragedy followed by tragedy. Revolutions devour their children and nowhere is that more true than in the Arab and Maghreb world. Gaddafi is gone but Libya is full of violence. The Syrian people get warm words from the west but nothing more as they are killed daily. The King of Bahrain came for tea at Downing street and the next thing we saw was a helpless woman being dragged away in front of cameras back in Bahrain as if the ruling elites there were sending a message to our Prime Minister that they did not care a fig about human rights.
	In Tunis today, the Manouba university’s faculty of letters, with 8,000 students, is occupied by Islamist ideologues insisting that girls wear the niqab and veil their faces if they want to be students. We are learning, perhaps too late, that Islamism is not a friendly ideology but remains a political construct aimed at destroying human freedoms.
	We have had to watch Egyptian soldiers faced with a peaceful protest pull a woman from the crowd and drag her painfully along the ground, exposing her breasts, before a brutal soldier stamps his booted foot on her chest. What is our Government’s response? Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary issued the blandest of bland statements:
	“The unrest of recent days shows the scale of the challenges which Egypt’s political system must address including the need to build full respect for human rights.”
	That was all the Foreign Secretary could say. “Unrest” is putting it uber-mildly, as 13 people have been shot dead by the Egyptian army, acting on orders, and hundreds have been wounded since Friday prayers last week. A military dictatorship is revealing itself in Egypt, aided by Islamists with that ideology’s extremely limited concept of freedom and democracy.
	We do not know the name of the young woman who has been in many newspapers, but we do know the name of the 26-year-old Egyptian blogger Maikel Nabil. He is now on the 118th day of a hunger strike that might well claim his life as he is taking only water at the moment. Nabil began earlier this year by blogging that
	“the Egyptian army and the people are of one hand”
	meaning that the two were working together for democracy. He changed his mind and later wrote that the army and the people were
	“no longer of one hand”
	when he saw the army repressing protestors. For publishing that incontrovertible journalistic truth, he was charged with “insulting the Egyptian military” and a military tribunal convicted him last April in a fake legal process. Last week in a retrial, amid the renewed brutality in Tahrir square, his conviction was upheld.
	The tribunal’s decision has been condemned by Reporters Without Borders and by the US State Department. I want to take advantage of this pre-Christmas debate to ask for our Foreign Secretary to add his own—and, I believe, Parliament’s—voice in calling for the immediate release of Maikel Nabil, who might well die soon, just as Mohammed Bouazizi died on 4 January this year when he sacrificed his life to call attention to the lack of freedom in Tunisia. Mr Nabil is taking only water now. His sacrifice is also in protest at the fact that Egypt’s
	ruling military council has put on trial 12,000 people in the post-Mubarak era, more civilians than were tried during all of Mubarak’s rule.
	Throughout history military tribunals dealing with civilians who irritate the generals work on the basis of presumption not of innocence but of guilt. There is no right to cross-examine witnesses or evidence, and no consideration of the evidence is permitted. There is no right of appeal. Nabil and the 12,000 Egyptians now in prison had no right to their own lawyer. This is Soviet-style justice, or perhaps could seem even worse if one considers justice in the Nazi era.
	I hope British lawyers will be able to go to Cairo to help Mr Nabil and other prisoners of conscience. I ask our Foreign Secretary to call in the Egyptian ambassador and demand Nabil’s immediate release and British generals who have hosted their Egyptian fellow army officers should place some calls to Cairo and say that the Egyptian military will be covered in shame if Maikel Nabil dies at their hands.
	The Arab spring is at a crossroads. Britain should speak loud and clear for justice and democracy.

David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the Christmas recess, there are a number of points that I wish to raise. I congratulate the Prime Minister on not signing the latest European treaty. Future generations will have every cause to thank him, and some of the French politicians behaved with less than great dignity.
	Of course, next year we will host the Olympic games. I am delighted that 95% of the population will be within travelling distance of the Olympic torch route. I am delighted to say that the torch will visit Southend on 6 July. We are also fortunate to have the mountain bike event at Hadleigh.
	Southend has not been so lucky when it comes to the national census. In 2001, 20,000 people were left off the census, and exactly the same seems to be happening this time. It is simply not good enough.
	I am delighted that Visteon pensioners are receiving support. I understand that legal proceedings are drawing to a conclusion; I wish those pensioners well in all their endeavours.
	Whistleblowing has become very fashionable, but not all whistleblowers are right, and there is every reason why constituents should know, through the Freedom of Information Act, who the whistleblower was when they have been wrongly accused.
	With Christmas just around the corner, I urge the House to think of Camp Ashraf, as the deadline for its closure draws ever nearer. If protection is not given to the people there, Iraqi forces might attack them. It is our duty to put pressure on the Iraqi Government to postpone the deadline, and to ensure that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is allowed to evacuate the refugees safely.
	Christmas is a wonderful time for giving, but many people give pets, and the result is absolutely disastrous: 11,500 pets were dumped last Christmas, so I hope that people will think very carefully before giving pets as presents this year.
	A recent survey has shown that 16% of the population would quite happily buy fake fragrance. I would like to advise against the purchase of fake perfume; not only is it economically damaging, costing the real industry as much as £319 million a year, but it is dangerous for the user, with the potential for allergic reactions. I congratulate the Real Deal campaign on what it is trying to do.
	I should also like to draw attention to the dangers of pocket lighters. According to a recent poll, one in 10 Brits has had an accident with a lighter, or knows someone who has. A worrying 79% of lighters sold in the UK do not conform to safety standards outlined in European regulations; I hope that the appropriate Department will have a look at that.
	Sadly, hate crime is a growing problem, and it is particularly potent when it affects people who are learning-disabled. People with learning disabilities need to be helped to report hate crime, and I congratulate Southend Mencap on what it is trying to do.
	I am still astounded at the way in which single parents are left isolated by what was the Child Support Agency. We brought before the House legislation that was supposed to help families, but I have in my constituency a Mrs O’Connor who has been struggling to get help for the past seven years. Her husband pays £5 a week towards the children. The latest letter that I got from the agency did not give a direct, personal line; it just gave a general line. That is absolutely disgraceful. The break-up of families is unfortunately an increasing phenomenon in today’s society. I commend the family justice review’s report, which mentions giving more power to grandparents.
	I end with some thoughts about this place. When I first became an MP, I could make a real difference to people’s lives. Unfortunately, increasingly I can do so only at the margin. One need only look at Parliament square, where we still have demonstrations, or at the ridiculous arrangements at the Curtis Green building. An important announcement was made about a local hospital, and Monitor did not even have a conversation with me—it just sent out a press release. That simply is not good enough. We need to get back ownership of this place, which was destroyed in 1997.
	As far as next year is concerned, I hope that my mother, Maud, will be able to celebrate her 100th birthday in April; I hope that the Queen will have a wonderful diamond jubilee; and we all look forward to the Olympic games. I wish everyone a very happy Christmas, good health, peace, prosperity, and a wonderful new year.

Eric Joyce: I want to speak briefly about two things: first, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and, secondly, IPSA—a subject into which I will segue with surprisingly little effort; as you will discover, Mr Deputy Speaker, there is a significant link between the two.
	Today, the incumbent President, Joseph Kabila, was invested in office again after an election that was preposterous. It was condemned strongly by the United States and France—and by Belgium; one might not normally think that terribly important, but in the case of the Congo, the Belgians’ position is quite important. Europe looks to Belgium to give a moral lead in some historical respect. The Carter Center observed the elections
	and said that they were not valid. The Open Society Institute did the same. In general, the position of most Governments, including the UK Government, is that the elections were a farce.
	Nevertheless, Joseph Kabila turns out to be still in power. It is one of those odd situations where it is hard to break off diplomatic relations with a country because it has flawed elections. Many countries do not have elections at all, but the Congo is one of those worrying cases where things are going backwards. It had pretty well organised, well run elections funded by the international community back in 2006. This time, early in the year, President Kabila changed the rules to take out the second round of elections because he did not think he would win in the second round. He thought he would win easily in the first round. As the campaigning moved on, it looked as though he might lose in the first round so it looks awfully like some manipulation took place, although nobody could see it. The manipulation occurs in the places where the ballot boxes are tipped out—sometimes just tipped out all over the floor and sometimes actually counted.
	Some remarkable results emerged. In Katanga, where President Kabila clearly has a fantastic campaigning machine, he managed to get 99.8% of the vote—remarkable. His getting the vote out and his ID work must have been truly magnificent—99.8% of the vote. Only more remarkable than that is the fact that the turnout in Katanga, his own stronghold, was 100.14%—astonishing success in the Congo. Perhaps we should be watching how those politicians campaign and what the campaigning methods are. On the other hand, perhaps not.

Denis MacShane: Was it AV?

Eric Joyce: There are direct elections in the Congo, of course, for the president. The parliamentary elections, which took place at the same time, will be counted shortly and the results will come out in January. We should probably have no more confidence in those. That is a great shame. I urge the UK Government to take a very strong position. As time goes by it is hard to deal with such a Government. We give considerable international development aid. We cannot reduce that; it goes directly through NGOs, but I hope the Government will take a strong position in the coming weeks and months.
	I shall now segue into IPSA. The President of the Congo has a cunning ruse. It is not that cunning, actually. He simply takes national assets, sells them to a mate for a pittance and then his mate sells them on for a few hundred million dollars profit. He has done it many times now. I have stuck it on my website for all who may be interested to see it. He has done it to the tune of $5 billion or $6 billion in the past two years. One such deal involved a company listed in the UK, a company called Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation, better known as ENRC.
	The deal is well known and has been extensively written about. I urge all Members to google it. It is an absolute shocker of a deal. It is quite clear that it was a very ropey and dodgy deal. One of the primary defenders of the deal is a man called Ken Olisa, who was a member of the board of ENRC. He said at the time, “I wouldn’t have joined the board if I thought there was anything ropey, if anything crooked was going on.” That was just before he was famously sacked by the
	ENRC oligarchs who run it. He then changed his tune and is famously quoted as saying that the company is more soviet than City. This is a company that essentially enables the President of the Congo to rip off the people of the Congo.
	IPSA has five board members—very experienced individuals who draw on their own experience. There is an accountant/academic, a former judge, a former quangocrat, and even a former Member of Parliament, so a pretty good bunch, except that the business man on IPSA is none other than Ken Olisa. I find that absolutely staggering. When I spoke about the subject last time, I was not even aware of it. Someone tweeted, “Perhaps Joyce ought to look at Ken Olisa’s other job before he slags off Ken Olisa again.” It is absolutely astonishing that that man should be on the board of IPSA, carrying out a function that we all agree is very important. I hope he may have the chance to reflect on whether his position on the board is appropriate.

Bob Russell: The preamble to the charter of the United Nations says that the UN was created
	“to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war . . . to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and . . . to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained”.
	It refers to the need
	“to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, and… to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours”.
	It states that
	“armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest,
	and that international machinery should be employed
	“for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples”.
	Article 1 of the UN charter, in chapter 1, refers to the need to
	“develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace”
	and to encourage
	“respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion”.
	Following that introduction, I would like to refer to the UN declaration of the rights of indigenous peoples, which was adopted on 13 September 2007. Article 8 states that indigenous peoples have a collective and individual right to maintain and develop their distinct identities and characteristics, including the right to identify themselves as indigenous and to be recognised as such. It states that indigenous peoples should
	“be free from discrimination of any kind”
	and that we need to recognise
	“the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources”.
	Sadly, there is one country in the world with which this country, every country in the European Union and the United States of America have very strong links, but which practises policies of ethnic cleansing and apartheid against its indigenous people. I refer to the state of Israel. The Israeli Cabinet took the decision on 11 September to proceed with a plan for attempting to resolve the long-standing issues faced by the country’s 200,000 Arab Bedouin population living in the southern Negev desert. The plan, known as the Prawer plan, will result in at least 30,000 people losing their homes. It is expected to be put to the Israeli Parliament any time now. The Bedouin community was not consulted when the plan was drawn up and already faces serious human rights violations through discriminatory policies.
	The Bedouin are Israel’s indigenous people, as has been accepted by the UN special rapporteur on indigenous peoples, but the Israeli Government refuse to accept that and withhold several rights that are accorded to them under international law. Israel now wants to try to move tens of thousands of Bedouin from their homes and villages into Government townships that are already overcrowded and have a whole range of social and economic problems.
	Earlier this year I had the privilege of visiting Palestine/Israel, the west bank and east Jerusalem. I witnessed at first hand policies of ethnic cleansing and apartheid against the Palestinian people in the occupied territories, which is a separate matter to that of the Arab Bedouin. We have heard today about the Arab spring, but I am referring to the Arab winter. Palestinian children are being arrested, ill treated—arguably tortured—and some of them are being detained in Israel in violation of article 76 of the fourth Geneva convention.
	Because of the illegal walls built by the state of Israel across the west bank, today Mary and Joseph would not have been able to get to Bethlehem, the shepherds would have been ethnically cleansed and the three kings would not have been allowed into Palestine. I am amazed that the leaders of the Christian faith around the world, whether the Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church, through the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Pope, have remained silent. It is time that the Christian leaders spoke up for the people of the holy land.

Tony Lloyd: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), and I pay tribute to his remarks. I shall stay in the middle east, but stick with the theme that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) introduced some moments ago of the Arab spring.
	The Arab spring is far from off course, and we have to maintain our optimism and hope that it can deliver to the peoples of that region justice and, for the first time in all our lifetimes, the prospect of democracy, but worrying developments are taking place, even in countries with which Britain has the closest of relationships.
	We know that 14 people have been killed by the security forces in Egypt since last Friday; we know that beatings are taking place; and we know of the case of the young woman who was half-stripped by the security forces, dragged along the floor and forced to reveal her underwear in what was a shameful act. Britain has strong relations with Egypt, but I endorse my right hon.
	Friend’s plea that its ambassador should be summoned to the Foreign Office and told of the serious concerns that this House and the people of Britain have about the actions of the security forces in a country that we value as a friendly nation.
	Bahrain is also a country with which Britain has the strongest possible contacts and strong business connections, but we know from recent times that business in countries such as Bahrain is best helped when Britain promotes a strong regard for human rights. So we have to tell the King of Bahrain, with whom we have strong contacts, that the arrest of Zainab Alkhawaja, the blogger known as Angry Arabiya, and her punching by members of the security forces is a disgrace; that he has to address the results of the commission of inquiry that he set up—his own commission—to look into the disturbances there; and that the doctors who were arrested by the security forces for treating the victims of violence should now be released. Those are simple demands, and the Bahraini ambassador should have it made clear to him that this Parliament does not tolerate such abuse of human rights, even by countries with which this country has a close friendship.
	In Syria, the situation is much complicated, with 5,000 people dead since the beginning of the Arab spring and the state deaf to any protest. The Russians may be starting to put a little more pressure on their long-time ally in Damascus, but Britain has again to speak out more loudly and to work with its allies in the European Union and at the United Nations to bring pressure on Damascus, because the systematic killing of people and the alleged rape of even children by the security forces is something about which we have to be vocal in the world. All Members would agree with that. We need robust diplomacy in the middle east, stating that human rights and the defence of democracy are in the common interest not simply of people in Britain, but of the ordinary citizens of Bahrain, Syria and Egypt.
	Britain’s own interest is in seeing democracy develop in the middle east. My right hon. Friend said that he distrusted Islamist parties, but we have to be a little careful not to portray all Islamist parties as hostile to democracy. In Turkey, for example, democracy is consistent with a moderate Islamist party, so we must not allow the fundamentalists to drive a wedge between our country and such moderate groups.
	Finally, on Belarus, almost a year ago to the day I led the international observation mission on the elections there, which were fraudulent from beginning to end and disgracefully ripped off the rights of the people of that country, but I was pleased to see this week a letter in the name of our Foreign Secretary and those of Germany, Poland and Sweden, making clear their position on Belarus. In that country, things go from bad to worse, and we have seen the presidential candidate, Andrei Sannikov, not only arrested and imprisoned, but imprisoned without his own family even being told where he is or able to communicate with him. That is a disgrace of an enormous magnitude and not simply the suppression of democracy, but an attempt to cow any voice—however strong, as Andrei Sannikov’s voice has been—that criticises the Lukashenko regime.
	It is right and proper that we now demand the toughest possible EU sanctions on the Lukashenko regime and those around him.

Kris Hopkins: I want to spend a few minutes celebrating some of the achievements in my constituency and highlighting some of my constituents’ concerns.
	This has been a very difficult year for many of my constituents, particularly those in business. I want to recognise the extraordinary efforts of organisations such as Ilkley Business Forum, which has been offering leadership in bringing businesses together to try to support each other, and in ensuring that other partnerships work effectively in delivering the success of these businesses. I have two messages. First, I would say to constituents: “Buy local and support your local high street and local businesses. Unless you use those services, you might, as people often say, lose them, so please go and support them.” All levels of government have a responsibility to support business, including local government, so I would say, secondly, to Bradford council, of which I was once leader: “Ignore businesses in Keighley and Ilkley at your own peril.” At this time of economic difficulties, raising taxes by putting fees on car parking in those towns is wrong. As one business man said to me recently, “The local council thinks the streets of Ilkley are paved with gold.” Local businesses do not need to have these charges put against them; they need to be supported, and the council needs to reconsider.
	We need to increase our capacity in the north. The north wants to make a positive contribution to the economy of this country and to change the dependency on the public sector and promote businesses. I therefore fully support the high-speed train link and want it to expand to Birmingham as soon as possible and then up to the north. Councils and MPs of all parties very much support this, and I give it my 100% backing.
	The public sector is undergoing some of the greatest changes in Britain. Cuts to the public sector, particularly in the north, are having a real effect on services and staff. In my last role as leader of the council, I saw the enormous commitment by public sector workers in delivering key services. I know that these are difficult times, and despite the many issues raised, I welcome the positive response by the majority of the trade unions—a response that I have come to respect, as will many other people.
	In my constituency, the jewel in the crown is probably Airedale general hospital. I want to acknowledge two “Highly Commended” national awards that the hospital has received and pay tribute to two members of staff, in particular. Senior audiologist Alan Walshaw has been recognised as audiologist of the year 2011, and Jane Downes, the hospital’s company secretary, has become company secretary of the year in a not-for-profit organisation. It is extremely important to recognise that.
	Educational attainment and skills are low in the constituency, and if we fail to address these issues, the town will fail. Keighley First locality achievement partnership has already, in its first year, made a significant impact on attendance at schools, and I applaud its efforts. Parkwood primary school and Long Lee primary school have been judged to be outstanding schools by Ofsted.
	A few weeks ago, I went to visit Project 6, which is a drug and alcohol treatment centre in town. Such a place is not always the most popular location in anybody’s
	town, but an enormous amount of important work is done there. Three ambassadors talked about their struggles in dealing with drug and alcohol abuse and the effect that it has had on their families. We all, in our towns and constituencies across the country, need to take some responsibility in addressing this. Many of these people want to make a positive contribution to society and not to be a burden. I pay tribute to the staff and volunteers at Project 6 for the work that they do.
	The measure of any nation is how it addresses international development. We put an enormous amount of money into international development, and that is important. With other countries, we have helped to vaccinate a quarter of a billion children against diseases that our children do not suffer from; we have saved the lives of very many people in the horn of Africa; and we have put money into schools in Gaza, where 12 new schools are helping 24,000 children.

Jack Lopresti: It is a pleasure to speak in this pre-recess Adjournment debate. I will focus my contribution on two local issues in my constituency. I had planned to talk about three issues, but I guess that it will have to be two because we are short of time. I am sure that I will manage. The two issues are superfast broadband connections and progress on the local campaign to combat antisocial behaviour.
	There is demand for superfast broadband across Bradley Stoke, which is a new town and the largest population centre in the constituency. The sticking point is that any significant undertaking to lay the necessary cables in the town to increase the broadband speed would have to be done at the providers’ cost because the roads are in a good state of repair.
	Last year, we started a community broadband campaign that collected more than 1,000 signatures to demonstrate the demand for improvements to the Almondsbury exchange. Although I appreciate that there are local infrastructure issues, it is difficult to see why the private sector is not capitalising better on that demand. We also hosted a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) and the local authority. The Minister told us that to help solve the problem, the Government have set up a scheme to provide £530 million of funding to improve broadband provision across the country.
	To ensure that South Gloucestershire council is able to benefit from the scheme, the Conservative-run council is working with Broadband Delivery UK to develop a local broadband plan, setting out how homes and businesses would benefit from improved broadband provision. Progress has not been as quick as I and some of my constituents would like. I am as keen as they are that concrete results emerge soon and I am hopeful that they will.
	South Gloucestershire council had been working with Bath and North East Somerset council on a joint superfast broadband plan to submit to the Government for approval. However, at its November meeting, the Bath and North East Somerset cabinet decided to pull out of the plan. It made no sense for the Lib Dem administration to pull out of the joint plan with South Gloucestershire council, given all the benefits that superfast broadband could
	bring to households and businesses across both districts. I am pleased to report that progress is none the less being made behind the scenes. I hope to give positive news to my constituents on this matter early in the new year.
	Hon. Members may remember that several months ago, in another pre-recess debate, I called for antisocial behaviour to be taken much more seriously by the police force that serves my area. I had been contacted by residents in Filton who were concerned that antisocial behaviour was being allowed to get out of control and was becoming a daily occurrence in some areas.
	I am pleased to say that we have made significant progress in ensuring that the local police put the appropriate amount of time and energy into tackling antisocial behaviour. I am in constant contact with Avon and Somerset police, including with Chief Constable Colin Port, with whom I have an effective working relationship. In my mind, local policing has improved greatly because local people’s priorities are being considered and swift action is being taken. I pay particular tribute to Inspector Robert Evely, who has worked tirelessly to ensure that local residents feel safe and that their voice is heard in local police decision making.
	When local policing takes into account local feelings, it can only be for the better. That is why I am such a strong supporter of the Government’s policy of police and crime commissioners and the elections that will take place in November 2012. Police and crime commissioners will be directly elected and accountable to the public who elected them and whom they serve. They will help to repair the broken link that I believe exists between the public and the police service. It is a fantastic policy that will be of huge benefit to residents in my area. I encourage all my constituents to take an interest, to participate in the elections and, if they are so minded, to consider running for the office.

Neil Parish: It is a great pleasure to speak in this recess debate. First, I want to talk about Feniton, which is a village in my constituency that was flooded badly in 2008. In the village there are many bungalows. When they were flooded, a lot of elderly people had to go up into their lofts to get away from the floods. As one can imagine, that was a terrifying experience.
	There are schemes to alleviate flooding in Feniton in the future. One scheme is to build ponds in the fields at the top of the village to collect water so that it does not rush down through the village, and thus to prevent flooding. The other plan is to build a pipe through the village to take water away more quickly. The only problem with the second solution is that it would take water down to the bottom end of the village, which would probably flood that area. I therefore think that the ponds at the top of the village are the answer. I am looking to the Environment Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to help finance that. I know that money is tight, but I am particularly interested in trying to help my constituents in Feniton.
	The other issue that I wish to raise is the aggregates levy sustainability fund, which was set up in April 2002 by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and is intended to promote more environmentally friendly extraction of aggregates and to control the impact on local people.
	There is a quarry at the villages of Westleigh and Burlescombe in my constituency, where some 750,000 tonnes of aggregate a year is extracted. The roads through Burlescombe are particularly poor and there are a lot of old cottages there, so the transportation of that aggregate is bad not only for the safety of the village but for its properties. The extraction produces something like £1.5 million a year of aggregates tax—a tax that was set up to help local people. I should like the Government to consider, as part of the Localism Bill, allowing some of that tax to be kept locally instead of being gobbled up by the Treasury, however exciting and necessary that might be.
	The quarry has some 25 to 30 years to run, so we can imagine the millions of tonnes of stone that will travel through the village. It is high time that we worked out a way in which a percentage of the aggregates tax could be siphoned off and ring-fenced for the village of Burlescombe. That would bring some relief to the village.
	There is also a tarmac plant at the Westleigh quarry, which runs day and night at times, especially at times of the year when there is a great demand for tarmac. Again, the villagers have to put up with lorries going through the village very late at night. It is high time that the Government, who are very keen on ensuring that local people have a say, give them a say on how the aggregates tax is spent. It may take several years, but a road and relief could be provided for the villagers of Burlescombe and Westleigh if just a small levy were put on the aggregates tax.
	I will be interested to hear what Ministers have to say about that matter, because many of my colleagues throughout the country will have quarries in their constituencies and be in the same position. Why should people who have to put up with the problems of quarrying not get any benefit from the aggregates tax, which was set up to look after local people?

Gordon Henderson: My local community has lost two friends in the past couple of weeks. First there was the very sad passing last week of Councillor Brenda Simpson, who was an outstanding member of Swale borough council for 23 years. Brenda was a perfect ward councillor who, despite being a staunch Conservative, always put the interests of her Kemsley community before party politics. She was honest, hard-working and a thoroughly nice person, and she will be missed by friend and political foe alike.
	This month we also witnessed the death of the East Kent Gazette, which closed its doors after 156 years of publication. My heart goes out to the hard-working staff who face the prospect of losing their jobs.
	This year we also witnessed the closure of Sittingbourne magistrates court, which was killed off by the Ministry of Justice despite a promise made to local people that it would remain open when Sheerness magistrates court was closed a few years ago. I am convinced that the closure will lead to some of my constituents being denied the access to justice to which they are entitled.
	Sadly, there are more closures in the pipeline. For instance, we are fighting to keep open Queenborough fire station, which Kent fire and rescue service wants to close on the grounds that the number of houses in the area does not warrant a fire station. That ignores the fact that there are plans to build another 2,500 homes in Queenborough in the foreseeable future.
	We are also fighting to save the Sheerness county youth club, which is under threat from Kent county council despite being acknowledged as one of the best youth clubs in the county.
	We have a number of other challenges, too. For instance, our local road infrastructure needs upgrading if we are to prevent the centre of Sittingbourne from becoming gridlocked in the not-too-distant future. For a start, we need urgent action to ease congestion on the A2 and on the A249 at the Stockbury roundabout, which is a nightmare during rush hour. In addition, we want to see a commitment to complete the final stretch of the northern relief road in Sittingbourne and agreement in principle for a southern relief road.
	Last week we learned that there are now almost 3,000 people unemployed in my constituency, an increase of 200 on the last quarter. But despite that increase I am quite upbeat about the future prospects for employment in my constituency. Recently Swale borough council approved planning applications for two new Morrisons supermarkets in the area, one in Sittingbourne and one on Sheppey. Tesco have also received planning approval for a major regeneration of Sittingbourne town centre. Those developments alone will create up to 1,500 very welcome jobs. Of course, because of their size, there might be a temptation for the Government to call in one or more of those planning applications. I would urge Ministers to resist that temptation so that those jobs can be delivered without delay.
	In Sittingbourne and Sheppey we are lucky to have some excellent schools, including six secondary schools, all of which have either achieved academy status or are hoping to become academies. But a number of those schools are in urgent need of capital investment. I understand why the Government scrapped the ill-thought-out and badly managed Building Schools for the Future programme, but I very much hope that money will be made available to the schools in my constituency who desperately need to upgrade their buildings in order to maintain the excellent standards that they currently achieve.
	Finally, there is one other bit of good news for my constituency, and it is literally good news! The Kent Messenger Group has stepped into the breach caused by the closure of the East Kent Gazette and last week launched a new paid-for paper in my constituency. It is called the Sittingbourn e News Extra, and judging by its first edition, it promises to provide Sittingbourne and its surrounding villages with the local news to which they have become accustomed. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the editor and staff of the Sittingbourn e News Extra on the quality of their paper and welcome them to our local community.
	There is so much more that I could say about my constituency, of which I am very proud, but sadly time does not allow me to do anything other than wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and other right hon. and hon. Members, a merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and peaceful new year.

Martin Vickers: On the face of it, my constituency might seem well served by transport as it has an international airport, the largest dock complex in the country and 10 railway stations, including
	one that serves two farms and an ancient ruin, and was used by 13 passengers in 2010. But the road network needs a little improvement. The main road into the constituency is the A180, but the A160 off to Immingham dock—which, as I said, is the largest dock complex in the country—is in urgent need of an upgrade.
	The last message I had from the Department for Transport said that the upgrade was included in 12 future schemes that should receive development funds, and that a decision would be taken by the end of the year. So time is running out and this is my last opportunity to lobby Ministers about the importance of the A160. Not only does it serve the existing Immingham dock, but it will serve one of the two new enterprise zones in the area, so it is clearly of vital importance.
	I welcome the Government’s recent decisions to grant those enterprise zones that status, and we also gained from the announcement that the Immingham bypass would at long last go ahead, as well as the halving of the Humber bridge tolls. May I also draw Ministers’ attention to the urgent need for a direct rail service from the constituency to London? About a year ago I met Alliance Rail, which is keen to do this, and it told me that its plans were still in the system. But the byzantine procedures that they have to go through for the opportunity to run a rail service are complex beyond belief. If we are to go ahead with High Speed 2 and develop our rail network, we must put together a system that reaches decisions rather more quickly. If the Victorians had been locked in to the present system, our trains would still be pulled by Stephenson’s Rocket, and the network would not have expanded as it did. There is no incentive for rail companies to provide extra services.
	That is typified by the service that runs on Saturdays only from Cleethorpes to Brigg, Kirton in Lindsey and Gainsborough, and then on to Sheffield. We have a good service to Sheffield via Doncaster, but I am eager for people from Gainsborough—I can see my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) in his place—to be able to use that service to take their families for a day out in Cleethorpes, where they can enjoy Pleasure Island and see the attractions that the “Cleethorpes in bloom” committee has organised.

Edward Leigh: And the other way round.

Martin Vickers: I thank my hon. Friend.

Susan Elan Jones: The hon. Gentleman is making the case eloquently for the links between good transport infrastructure and economic development, but does he agree that direct train services are pivotal to that? Sometimes London does not realise that direct services—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. That is far too long an intervention. May I just say to Members that time is tight? I want to get everybody in, but time is very tight indeed. If people are going to give way, they should remember that the extra minute will come off somebody else’s time. Please let us try to ensure that we get everybody in.

Martin Vickers: I certainly agree with the hon. Lady’s point. It is vital for growth and economic development that we should have direct services. However, the system is so complex that there is no incentive for existing railway companies to expand. They can pile people on to existing services, but where is the incentive to take the commercial risk and develop a new service? We must do something to improve the situation.
	Finally, I want to return to the vexed subject of the Humber bridge tolls. Members will appreciate that in his autumn statement the Chancellor halved the tolls. That is a great boost to the economy of the local area. Sadly, there is a fly in the ointment: the four local authorities have to reach agreement, because otherwise legislation is required. Three of the local authorities, under a mixture of political control, have agreed that the underwriting of the remaining debt should be split equally between them. Unfortunately, the leader of North East Lincolnshire council has taken a rather obstinate and petulant position, saying that that should be divided according to population.
	I have written to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker)—the two Ministers who conducted the recent review. However, may I urge those on the Front Bench to pass on my concerns to both those Ministers and all concerned, and ask that whatever pressure is possible be applied, so that this matter can be resolved? After 25 years of campaigning we now have the opportunity to give the local economy a real boost, and give easier and cheaper access to those who have to cross the bridge to obtain health treatment. Now is the time to do that. I urge Ministers to do all they can to resolve this issue as quickly as possible.

Harriett Baldwin: Mr Deputy Speaker, may I take the opportunity in this eclectic Christmas debate to wish you, your colleagues and all right hon. and hon. Members, as well as all parliamentary staff, a very happy Christmas and all the best for the new year?
	I want to raise a topic of constitutional importance to a Government who have embraced parliamentary and constitutional reform with great enthusiasm: the West Lothian question. In fact, I would go so far as to say that all I want for Christmas is a West Lothian commission. I know that the Government share my enthusiasm to set up such a commission, because they have referred to it on many occasions. I think the first occasion in this Parliament was when the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) said in July 2010 that he anticipated that the commission would be set up by autumn 2010. That was confirmed again later that July by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who said that he would bring forward proposals in the autumn.
	However, by October we heard that, in fact, the aim was to announce plans for a commission by the end of 2010. Then, when I raised the subject in last year’s Christmas Adjournment debate, I was assured that we would get the announcement in the new year. When I asked whether that meant 2011, I was assured that the Government were happy to confirm that that was the case. Imagine my excitement, then, when 2011 arrived,
	and when we were told, in March, that the commission would shortly be established. As time progressed throughout the year, a debate on the West Lothian commission took place in Westminster Hall, at which the Parliamentary Secretary confirmed that, in referring to “this year”, he did indeed mean 2011.
	I was therefore very excited when a written ministerial statement was made on 8 September to assure the House that the commitment in the coalition’s programme for government to
	“establish a commission to consider the ‘West Lothian question’”
	would result in a commission being established after the conclusion of a
	“short process of consultation and further deliberation. I expect that this will be in the weeks after the House returns in October.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2011; Vol. 532, c. 28WS.]
	In the debate on my private Member’s Bill on 9 September, we again heard that the Government were keen to address this thorny constitutional topic as soon as possible. It is a problem that could become quite serious if it is not addressed.
	It has taken 100 years to get this far towards establishing a commission on the West Lothian question, and we must welcome the enormous progress that has been made. I was delighted when the Deputy Leader of the House was able to confirm last week that the announcement was to be made shortly. I am therefore pleased to be able to give him this additional chance today, while we are still in 2011, to embrace this issue with the enthusiasm that I know he shares and to announce the establishment of the West Lothian commission. So, without further ado, I shall sit down and eagerly await that announcement.

Mark Pawsey: I wish to raise a matter that is of particular concern to the logistics industry. That industry is something of a Cinderella sector whose contribution to the UK economy is often not recognised. It has had a tough few years, not least as a result of high fuel prices. Despite that, it has continued to deliver the goods for the UK, and our economy depends on an efficient, successful supply chain getting the right goods to the right places.
	The logistics sector is of particular importance to my constituency, because Rugby enjoys an ideal location in the centre of England and at the crossroads of the motorway network, an hour away from the M25. As an aside, I should like to say that the industry and I welcome the Government’s commitment to improving the Catthorpe intersection at junction 19 of the M1. It is at the crossroads of the motorway network, and the scheme will improve a junction that currently suffers from considerable delays and accidents.
	The issue that I wish to raise is the proposed EU regulation on the height of commercial vehicle trailers. The EU is seeking to restrict such trailers to a height of 4 metres through a directive known as the whole vehicle type approval scheme. The EU claims that this will ensure safety on our roads, but I believe that it is an example of the EU bringing in standardisation for standardisation’s sake.
	I doubt that many Members will be aware of the directive. I was unaware of it until I had a meeting with representatives of a company based in my constituency. Lloyd Fraser Contracts is a large logistics company,
	among whose many contracts is one with Mr Kipling cakes. At this time of year, it spends much of its time delivering mince pies, among other things. These are relatively light, fragile products that are packed in boxes of very little weight. It is important to get as many boxes as possible into the trailers, and one way for the company to do that is to make its trailers taller to maximise the available space.
	In response to the EU’s claim, Lloyd Fraser told me that it knew of only two instances in which the height of a trailer had been an issue in an accident. It was put to me that self-regulation has worked effectively in recent years. I was also told that when issues of wind speed are involved, the company takes a decision to take the high-sided vehicles off the road. It sees no reason for legislation. However, 4.9 metres seems to have been adopted within the UK as the maximum height of a trailer, but the company is now using double, triple or even quadruple decks on its lorries. In doing this, British businesses gain extra cubic capacity, while fuel consumption and exhaust emissions per tonne of product are dramatically cut. There is a strong business case for allowing British distributors and logistics companies to do what they have been doing.
	In this matter, I want to refer to research published by Professor Alan McKinnon in October 2010. It showed that between 2004 and 2008 there was a 57% increase in the amount of freight moved in double-deck trailers. If the EU regulations are implemented and the UK is not granted an exemption, this directive would see road haulage costs rise by roughly £305 million, with CO2 emissions increasing by 64%—equivalent to having 151,000 extra cars on UK roads.
	This is a potential problem for the UK, but I understand that work is going on behind the scenes between the Government and the EU. I welcome some of the meetings that have taken place with representatives from the industry. I very much hope that this will bring a successful resolution for all. It is important to champion the freight industry for keeping this country’s economy on the move. When it comes to the negotiations, I hope that common sense will prevail.
	Finally, I extend to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to all Members and to staff a very happy Christmas.

Neil Carmichael: It is an honour to speak in the final debate before Christmas. I want to talk about manufacturing engineering. We have a large number of successful manufacturers in my constituency, notably in the engineering sector, but in a wide range of products. I believe that we should celebrate these successes; it is time we put the spotlight on them. I am organising a festival for manufacturing and engineering to achieve exactly that.
	First, I want to thank all the firms and organisations, especially the schools and our local college, for the massive support I have received in organising this week-long festival, which will focus on a wide variety of manufacturers and engineers.
	I want to organise the festival for three reasons. First, as I have already said, I want to celebrate the success in my constituency. Manufacturers make a lot of innovative products and they export them across the globe. That is absolutely fantastic, and we need to say so.
	Secondly, we want more investment—much more investment—from outside as well as inside, because that will further drive the success of these businesses. To that end, I aim to ensure that investors come to Stroud to see what we have on offer in terms of the infrastructure and the people already there, and the opportunities.
	The third reason I am organising this event is to make sure that young people see manufacturing as a pathway towards their own careers or a pathway to develop their expertise in manufacturing and engineering—to see it as a way to spend their lives in a working environment. It is so important to encourage young people to think about manufacturing and engineering as places to work.
	Those are my three reasons, and I believe the festival will be a success. It starts on 23 April. I have brought on board a large number of people—beyond those supporting it through sponsorship and provision of other forms of support—because the initiative strikes at the heart of what we need to do.
	Several things need to be done better, however, to make sure that manufacturing and engineering succeed in the long term. One is making sure that the banks start to understand how these firms really work, what they aim to do and how the banks can help them. We have to be more subtle and more sophisticated at analysing the requests for additional funds, especially in the small and medium-sized enterprises sector. We need, too, to go beyond simply managing debt towards equity funding. The Government should encourage that as they move towards implementation of the Vickers report. I look forward to contributing to those debates, but I want to put down a marker now: we must ensure that that is done.
	Secondly, I think that we must be more aware of the length and sophistication of manufacturing supply chains. That is equally important in the context of Gloucestershire as the town that contains my constituency and in the context of Gloucestershire as part of England, and indeed that of England, Britain, Europe and the world. Supply chains are critical. I welcome the Government’s investment in them so far, but we must ensure that our attitude to economic policy takes account of that important element of manufacturing and engineering. Obviously, I shall want to draw particular attention to what happens in Stroud.
	Finally, I want to emphasise the importance of skills and apprenticeships. It was good that we debated the subject yesterday, but we still need to find ways of encouraging young people to think about small businesses as options for apprenticeships, and encouraging small businesses to see apprenticeships as a way forward for them. We focus too much on the restrictions that deter them from employing young people. I know that we are reducing those restrictions, but we must also start to talk positively about the role that young people can and should play in small as well as medium-sized businesses. Those are facts, and they are important in ensuring that our economy thrives.
	I want 2012 to be a happy and successful year for manufacturers, and I wish all Members of the House and the officers who support it a first-class Christmas.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I must reduce the speaking time to four minutes so that all Members have a chance to speak.

Penny Mordaunt: I am going to speak about Portsmouth football club. I warn the House that there is some good news and some bad news. The good news is that fans have come together to set up a supporters trust. I declare an interest as a proud member of that trust: like so many others, I pay a £5 subscription, which goes towards funding community projects and, potentially, safeguarding the future of the club. I pay tribute to all who brought that about, in Portsmouth and at Supporters Direct.
	Now for the bad news. It is often said by enthusiasts—although we in this House would disagree—that the mark of a good referee is that he goes unnoticed, letting the game run its course. Sadly for fans of Portsmouth, the financial referee has been too much in evidence in recent years. Yet again, Portsmouth has been let down by one of its owners. At about the time when we were debating the problems with the European arrest warrant, one such warrant was issued for the Russian owner of the club so that he could answer charges of money laundering in Lithuania. His company, Convers Sports Initiatives—or, rather appropriately, CSI—was placed in administration, and the hunt for another new owner is under way.
	Fans and the club staff are right to feel disappointed after the extraordinary amount of work that has been put in by so many people over the last 18 months to avoid closure and rebuild the club. The sense of despair is all the more acute given that the “fit and proper person” test was supposed to weed out unsuitable owners. I am keen to hear the Minister’s views on the situation, and to be told what he can do to support the club in its latest challenge. Needless to say, I have a few suggestions.
	I think that the Minister should be anxious for the vetting of prospective club owners to be done well, and I should like to hear his assessment of the process that led to CSI’s being allowed to buy Portsmouth. I was very pleased both by the report on football governance by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and by the Government’s response to it. The social value of the game is very much recognised in this place.
	Those who invest in football clubs as a means of making money would do well to recognise that they have put their money not just into a vehicle for profit, but into the collective identity of communities—the bonds shared between generations of families. It is that simple enjoyment of the game and love of the club for its own sake that makes supporters clubs appropriate participants in club governance. Their sole interest is the club, and without them there would be no club. In my view, that is the most compelling argument in my view for supporters trusts to have a governance role.
	Like the Portsmouth supporters trust, I think that the option of supporter involvement via a financial stake should be considered for Portsmouth, and I am helping with the production of an assessment of the amount that could be raised. The professionalism with which the trust has conducted itself has been hugely impressive. The core working party is composed of knowledgeable and skilled individuals with the financial and legal
	expertise to develop this proposition. However, they have been faced with a series of improbable but all too real barriers. They do not yet have access to the financial information any prospective buyer would be entitled to see. There appears to be a bias against them—a suspicion that they are not serious, and an assumption they do not have the funds and that they are not competent. We will demonstrate, because we can, that all these prejudices are unfounded, but it should not be necessary to go to such lengths. I would be grateful if the Minister made it clear to the administrators that in taking such a stance they are not acting in anyone’s interests. Discrimination is not the better part of valour. The administrators should be left in no doubt that this House and the Government believe in supporter involvement and that the Portsmouth supporters trust should be both treated and judged on a level playing field.
	I would be grateful if the Minister took an active interest in this latest episode of Portsmouth football club’s life, and for anything the Minister could do to support the trust and the fans in safeguarding their beloved club’s future.
	Finally, I wish colleagues a happy Christmas.

Therese Coffey: First, may I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker and all the staff and officials of the House, as well as the security officers, for all they do in making the work of Members easier than it would otherwise be? I also want to thank my own staff—those currently working for me, and those who have moved on—for all their support in helping me represent Suffolk Coastal.
	I want to highlight three topics. The first of them is the high fuel costs of people who live in off-gas-grid houses. I first raised this issue just over a year ago, when we were in the middle of a bleak mid-winter—the current winter has been much milder, of course. Last year people were paying just over 70p a litre for heating oil, and this Christmas the price is 60p, but that is still a huge amount of money, and the price is 50% higher than it was two years ago. I want to publicise the all-party group that was set up yesterday. I am sure that all the Members who have worked so hard on this issue will flock to join it. I also want to thank the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), for all the work he has done in helping to move this cause along. I hope that 2012 will be the year of success, when we can finally hold our heads up high on behalf of our constituents, many of whom are suffering fuel poverty. I also commend the community foundation networks for establishing the “surviving winter” appeal. When they are looking for people who really need their help, I ask them to look to the households without access to gas, as they are spending a lot of money to keep warm this winter.
	Turning to rural post offices, I will keep up the fight for my local post offices in Wangford, Walberswick and Blythburgh. Unfortunately, the outreach service is no longer working properly, but it is important that such services can be accessed. The Post Office is working on that, but it is important that communities are supported, rather than face constant frustration.
	On broadband, I am keen that the people of Suffolk show their support for the procurements that will happen next year. It is vital for our county that both fixed and mobile broadband are successes, in order to make Suffolk Coastal a great place not only to come to for the weekend but to work, rest and play all year round. I am also encouraged by recent comments by Ofcom about mobile broadband, and I am confident that the voice of the House will be listened to in ensuring that coverage of at least 98% will be achieved next year.
	I thank all the people of Suffolk for raising more than £3 million towards the Treehouse appeal. I also thank the brave soldiers and officers of 23 Engineers, who are based in my constituency at the Rock barracks near Woodbridge. I specifically thank the commanding officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Frazer Ross. He has shown great leadership to that regiment. I am very sad that he will be moving on to his next post early, but I wish Frazer and Sandra well. Incidentally, they are moving to within a mile of where I used to live in Hampshire.
	I also thank Siobhan Jordan from Ipswich hospital for getting through the second Care Quality Commission inspection, and I wish Carole Crocker, director of nursing at James Paget university hospital, the best of luck; I hope we manage to pull through.
	Finally, local enterprise partnerships were established only this year, and I pay tribute to the new Anglia LEP and Andy Wood, who has been its chair. He has been a great driver of growth and I hope that continues in 2012.

Ann Clwyd: To cut straight to the point, happy Christmas; there is not much time to say anything else.
	I want to draw attention to the trial of Bradley Manning, a young US soldier with a Welsh mother who is standing before a pre-trial hearing in a military court in Washington at the moment. In April 2010, the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange publicly released the Iraq video “Collateral Murder”, which shows a US army attack in Iraq in 2007 that left 12 innocent civilians dead, including two employees of Reuters. The disturbing Iraq footage proved to be just the start of a series of WikiLeaks releases that included US military incident reports from Afghanistan and Iraq, and tens of thousands of US diplomatic cables.
	In May 2010, a young US Marine was arrested while serving in Iraq on suspicion of being the source of the WikiLeaks revelations. Just a few months earlier, Hillary Clinton praised the use of the internet—praised blogs, e-mails, social networks and text messages—which she said has opened up new forums for exchanging ideas, and created new targets for censorship.
	The pre-trial hearing that is now under way will determine whether Bradley Manning will face court martial. He is charged with aiding the enemy and violating the espionage Act, and if convicted could be sentenced to life imprisonment. Manning has appeared in public for the first time since being confined under maximum security for one and a half years. For much of that time he was held in conditions so harsh that the UN rapporteur on torture felt compelled to express concern after being denied unrestricted access to Manning by the US Government. The US Government’s treatment of Bradley
	Manning in these conditions has been discussed by me and others in this House previously, and it was international pressure that got him better prison conditions.
	I believe that Bradley Manning is carrying the can for repeated mistakes by the US military. He should never have been sent to Iraq in the first place. He should have been discharged from the army, as was originally intended. The people who should be on trial are those who ignored the medical evidence. They sent a vulnerable young man to deal with sensitive classified information. They were negligent. It is clear now from the evidence coming out in the court that this was a troubled young man who should never have been given access to classified information. Those who allowed this access were grossly negligent and have only themselves to blame.
	I believe that Bradley Manning’s actions have served as one of the sparks for the emerging Arab spring and the dramatic changes across the middle east. I hope that this House agrees with me that Bradley Manning should have a fair trial, that it should be held in proper conditions and with him being given access to the people he needs to see, and that his defence counsel should be able to call the witnesses they want to call. At the moment, those witnesses have not been called—that is being denied by the court—but all the prosecution witnesses have been allowed to be called by the prosecution.

Edward Leigh: Mr Speaker, welcome to the Chair. Because I believe in crawling to people in authority, may I wish you a very happy and merry Christmas and thank you for your delightful Christmas card?
	This is a wonderfully eclectic debate—from ponds in Devon to dictators in the Congo getting 99.8% of the vote. I want to deal, like my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), with local issues that relate to Lincolnshire. He mentioned the extraordinary railway line that connects our two constituencies, and there are only three trains a week, which all run on Saturdays. However, there is a much more important railway line that runs from Grimsby and Cleethorpes down through Market Rasen, in my constituency, to Lincoln and then on to London. We used to have a direct service and my hon. Friend referred to resurrecting this vitally important service; but I say to him that we want it to go through Market Rasen and Lincoln, and not through Doncaster. I am sure he will be agreeable to that, and I expect the Minister to make a commitment to that effect when he winds up this debate.
	What I really want to talk about in the remaining two minutes or so of my speech is an important project in Gainsborough that is in danger of closure but must not be closed. This is about the big society, which the Prime Minister was right to launch. He was right to change the emphasis from big government to families, individuals, neighbours and local people. In my constituency there is just such a big society project. It was founded in 2007 and is called YaSiG—Young and Safe in Gainsborough.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) talked about the power of history and the importance of history teaching, but many people fall out of our school system and YaSiG provides for them.
	It provides for people between the ages of 13 and 24 who have fallen out of education and it co-ordinates a number of facilities for young people. It gives them a safe place to meet and socialise. It runs, among other things, a very successful motorcycle maintenance course, which I have visited, operating outside the classroom and providing just the sort of training opportunities that many young people need. YaSiG covers subjects as varied as sports, catering and horticulture. It emphasises building social skills, and it improves confidence and the ability to work with older people. There is no doubt that this project, which operates in one of the most deprived wards in England, Gainsborough South West, is already making a big difference.
	The project was set up with money from the previous Government, under the community asset transfer programme, but it was not thought through. There were adequate funds for the capital injection but not for revenue maintenance, and the project simply cannot be sustained now. I urgently call—this should happen over the next 24 hours—on Lincolnshire county council, West Lindsey district council and the Government to co-ordinate their efforts to save this vital project. At the very least, West Lindsey district council should give the freehold to YaSiG, so that it can borrow against it, and should waive its indemnity of £45,000. If we really do believe in projects that further the big society and provide for the most deprived people in our community, we cannot let them go out of business. We should co-ordinate efforts to save them and to help our young people in the future.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Mel Stride.

Mel Stride: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and a very happy Christmas to you.
	I rise to speak on the subject of speaking—on the way in which we organise debates in this House. I have some simple but radical ideas which, if implemented, would improve the efficiency of Members and the quality of debate in this Chamber. Vitally, they would also increase the level of communication that this House has with the wider public and, in particular, with the young people we are so importantly trying to reach nowadays.
	If we put in to speak in a debate such as this, we write, quite rightly, to the Speaker. The Speaker and his assistants then put together a list, we appear in a certain order on it and that information is held fairly tightly to the Chair. We may become privy to it as the debate progresses, but it is not widely disseminated in the Chamber or in the Palace of Westminster, or to the wider general public. There would be a huge advantage to us all if we were to publish that information—the order in which people were due to speak and roughly when they would be expected to speak—and it was on electronic boards in the Chamber, on the annunciators around the Palace of Westminster, on the internet, and if we allowed it to go out on apps on telephones, mobile devices and so on. Members of the public would, thus, know, for example, that the hon. Member for Central Devon was going to speak in approximately 30 minutes’ time and so would be able to tune into the Parliament channel to see his brilliant performance.
	Such an approach would meet a number of important objectives. First, it would mean that Members would know roughly when they were due to speak in a debate, which would allow them to plan a little more thoroughly. Secondly, it would raise the quality of debate, because Members in the rest of the Palace of Westminster could come into the Chamber at a particular moment knowing that somebody was about to speak and they could then intervene on them, and because somebody speaking in the Chamber would know which Members were likely to speak subsequently, they could therefore invite them to comment, or otherwise, on something that they were saying.
	The most useful part of such an approach would be that it would engage those outside this Chamber, as the public would be able to establish exactly when a particular Member was due to speak. We all have constituents who will often say to us, “I always watch the Parliament channel and sometimes I see you, sometimes I do not. I would love to know when you are actually speaking.” My proposal would be a method by which they could do that.
	It would be particularly appropriate and effective for younger people, who could use an app on their telephone. My telephone, for example, has an app that can tell me when any bus in London is about to reach any particular stop, as it uses real-time information, and there is no reason why the information on when Members of Parliament are due to speak should not similarly be made available. I believe that that could engage young people, who could receive that information and, by tapping an app, could actually see us speaking in this Chamber.
	I believe, quite rightly, that this is a highly impressive, wonderful and venerable institution. It is the mother of all Parliaments, but I believe that if we are to move with the times and keep that important link between ourselves and the general public—the electorate of all ages—we should make such a change. For those who fear change, I suggest that we could take a gradualist approach, introducing it bit by it. It could be experimental, in that we could try it for a short time and then reassess it. Of course, we could maintain some of our rules about being present for the opening speeches, the wind-ups and so on.
	With that message, Mr Speaker, I wish you a happy Christmas and thank you for this opportunity to speak.

Bob Blackman: At this time of year, it is appropriate that we should pay due tribute to our excellent emergency services: our doctors, nurses, ambulance crews, paramedics, firefighters and, of course, our wonderful police. They do a magnificent job, keeping us safe in our homes and healthy. When many of us are enjoying ourselves, they will be working, as they do 365 days a year. It is right that we should pay tribute to those excellent people.
	I also want to place on the record the actions of the four brave police officers who laid their lives on the line just a month ago when they were stabbed. They were Harrow police officers, but were operating in the neighbouring constituency. They are now at home, recovering with their families, and I am sure I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say that our thoughts
	are with them and their families, wishing them a speedy recovery and a return to active duty as soon as they can do so.
	I also, however, want to refer briefly to some reforms that are possible within the police service. The four police officers who were stabbed were wearing the official uniforms given to them by the police service as well as stab-proof vests. Despite that, they were stabbed, so it is appropriate that the police service should review the quality of the equipment issued to our police so that they are not placed in danger.
	We could also improve the procurement policies pursued in the police service. The Government estimate that £300 million a year can be saved through more positive procurement. Let me give one or two examples of where I think it is going completely wrong at the moment. In the Metropolitan police, for example, if someone’s computer goes wrong and they call out an engineer, the call-out charge is £200. Equally, the maintenance for a single printer is £85 a year. Of course, for £85 a printer can be bought to replace it in a local shop rather than maintaining those they already have. It is a shocking fact that, in our police stations across the capital, if someone’s light bulb goes out of action they have to call someone else and the cost of getting that light bulb replaced is £200. Members of the police service could, quite simply, replace them themselves, but they are not allowed to. It is complete and utter nonsense.
	I also think we need to consider reviewing the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. At the moment, our police are forced to handwrite statements and police community support officers are not allowed to take witness statements from members of the public. Clearly, at a time when we can use technology, it is appropriate that we should do so. Our police officers have to keep multiple forms, most of which are not used at all. Customer practice has built up, however, that that data should be collected and brought to police stations, where nothing seems to happen to it.
	I also want to raise the issue of ethnic monitoring. It is absolutely crucial that we monitor our services to make sure that we provide them appropriately, but it is nonsensical that when someone is arrested, they and the police officer arresting them get the right to say to which ethnic minority the person arrested belongs. That does not seem very sensible. As we build up to the Olympics, the police are still suffering from the overload resulting from the riots last summer; there have been 12-hour shifts and all holiday was cancelled, and the pressure on the police is growing.
	Mr Speaker, I end by wishing you, all Members of the House and everyone associated with Parliament a happy Christmas, a happy Hanukkah, and a peaceful, prosperous and healthy new year.

David Heath: The hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) said that this was an eclectic debate; “eclectic” does not begin to describe the task that lies ahead of me as I try to respond, in the next 10 minutes, to hon. Members who have spoken. As she has so many times raised the issue on which she spoke, and has not been given satisfaction from the Dispatch Box, I will deal with her
	point first and give her the statement that I think she was hoping for; the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), would perhaps have given it earlier, if he had had the opportunity. The commission on the West Lothian question will start work in February 2012, and will report by the end of the Session in spring 2013. My hon. Friend will make a further statement on the commission in the new year.
	A spate of points were raised about foreign affairs. The right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd), and my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) talked about various aspects of world affairs relating to what we loosely group together as the middle east, the Sahel and the Maghreb, as if that were all an amorphous mass, which it clearly is not. There are many countries there with different issues. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester raised the issues in Israel to do with the Bedouin in the south Negev desert. What brings those issues together, as far as the British Government’s position is concerned, is our commitment to human rights and developing democracy, and our wish to extend friendship, particularly to the new Governments forming in those areas, and to help them in any way that we can to achieve those objectives. Where they stray from those objectives, we might perhaps constructively point out that there are better ways of doing business. The hon. Member for Manchester Central raised the issue of Bahrain; it is very good that the King of Bahrain has appointed a commission to look into the issues, but the test is what happens to the response. Those matters were well worth raising.
	The hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce), who I do not think is in the Chamber at the moment, talked about the Democratic Republic of the Congo—a long-term interest of his—and expressed concerns about the elections there. The good news from the Democratic Republic of the Congo is that there were elections, they were largely peaceful and there was a high turnout, but clearly there were problems, which were identified by a number of observers. Those are matters that the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo need to look at.
	The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) talked about the case of Bradley Manning, which is before the American courts; it is right for us to express concern and state that he should have a fair and open trial in the United States on the matters on which he was arraigned.
	The hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) talked about teaching history—a subject that I raised in Adjournment debates when I was in opposition, because it is desperately important for our young people to be given a sense of history—not just national and world history but local history, so that they have a sense of identity and of the place where they live. That is a matter that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department for Education are looking at in the context of the curriculum review. The hon. Member for Kingswood made his point extremely well.
	The hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) spoke about how we conduct our business in the House. It is not for me to respond to that. Perhaps it is for
	Mr Speaker to respond, or the Procedure Committee, but the points that the hon. Gentleman raised were sensible suggestions that ought to be considered.
	Many hon. Members talked about local issues in their area. I have a great deal of fellow feeling for some of them. The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) talked about fuel poverty, a matter with which, as she rightly said, I have engaged myself over the years, particularly the difficulties of people in rural areas who often do not have access to mains gas, are reliant on fuel oil or LPG and find themselves in considerable difficulties because of the increasing costs. The Government are very aware of that.
	The hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) pointed out some successes in his constituency, in both schools and hospitals, and said something very important in support of the public sector. It is important that from the Dispatch Box we say how much we appreciate what people in the public sector do. The role that they play in society is an extremely positive contribution. I am very pleased about the successful resolution of those discussions that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced in his statement earlier today.
	The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) spoke about two things. The first was high-speed broadband in his area, which he is right to say is crucial. That is why the Government are engaged in the programme, and why the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) has insisted that local authorities have a draft local broadband plan by the end of February, and have it agreed by the end of April, in order to secure matched funding. I hope the hon. Gentleman will now be able to make significant progress. Secondly, he spoke about antisocial behaviour, and was able to report progress in his area. As a former chair of the Avon and Somerset police authority, I am particularly pleased, as we share a police authority area, that Chief Constable Colin Port has been in contact and has taken such a supportive view.
	The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) was guaranteed my full attention when he talked about flooding in the village of Feniton, with which he knows I am more than familiar—not with the village, but with the concept of flooding in my constituency. He went on to talk about quarrying. My constituency is the most densely populated quarrying area in the whole country. The points he raised about the aggregates sustainability fund would be echoed by many communities in my constituency.
	The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) has, I hope, guaranteed that he will be mentioned in the Sittingbourne News Extra editorial next week. From his contributions to these debates, I feel that I know an awful lot more about Sittingbourne and Sheppey than I did a year or two ago.
	The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) said that he has an airport, he has docks, he has 10 stations, and then had the temerity to expect trains to stop at his stations. He wanted the roads, including the A160, to be improved, and he also spoke about Humber bridge tolls. I think that his views were compatible with those of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), who also spoke about roads. I think they have neighbouring constituencies, so it is good that they are working together. The hon. Member for Gainsborough
	also mentioned Young and Safe in Gainsborough, an organisation he obviously believes does very good work. We must hope that it survives its current difficulties.
	The hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) clearly has an exceedingly good company in his constituency, but spoke about the 4 metre height limit that has been proposed by the Commission. The Government agree that the 4 metre height limit is inappropriate and continue to press the Commission not to implement it. The hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) talked about the importance of manufacturing in his constituency and he is absolutely right. He also spoke about the importance of apprenticeships. I am very pleased that we have had 442,700 new apprenticeship starts in the past year, compared with 279,700 the previous year. That is a real commitment to young people getting the skills that they need.
	The hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) talked about Portsmouth football club. As a former rugby player, I have to say that I am not a great expert on football, but she demonstrated the difficulty that the football authorities face in implementing the owners and directors test, which is a self-certification test based on a series of objective criteria, rather than a subjective test of individuals.
	The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) talked about efficiencies in the police service, and clearly improvements can still be made in modernising the police service. The hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) included everything in his contribution, as he always does. He is a regular on these occasions and gave a superb performance. I wish you, Mr Speaker, and all Officers and Members of the House a very happy Christmas. In particular, I wish to put on the record our
	appreciation of Eddie McKay, who was appointed to the House in January 1988 and is retiring this Christmas. We wish him every success and happiness in his retirement.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Deputy Leader of the House and reciprocate his good wishes.
	Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3) , and Order, 1 November ).

PETITION
	 — 
	Planning (Woodside Close, Walsall)

Valerie Vaz: The petition is from the residents of Woodside Close, Walsall and others. It has been signed by 263 people.
	The petition
	Declares that the Petitioners object to the proposed redevelopment at 1 Woodside Close, Walsall WS5 3LU, planning reference 11/1217/FL, involving the demolition of existing buildings and construction of 14 two bedroom apartments, on the grounds that the Petitioners believe that the redevelopment is an overdevelopment, incorporating a third storey in the roof, out of character with the area, and that the development is in an unsustainable location, with insufficient parking together with parking on the frontage, as shown on the plans, along with inadequate amenity space.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to encourage Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council to consider the objections of the local residents.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.[P000993]

ABDUCTION OF LYDIA HUNT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Bill Wiggin.)

Stephen Timms: I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this, the final debate of the calendar year. Lydia Hunt is the first child of my constituent Jonathan Hunt and his wife Irma Obregon Guerrero. Lydia was born in June 2006. At Easter 2008, shortly before Lydia’s second birthday, the family travelled to Mrs Hunt’s native Mexico for a holiday with her family. Mr Hunt returned to the UK in May for work commitments, and the plan was that his wife and Lydia would follow a couple of weeks later. Some time later, Mrs Hunt called her husband to tell him that there would be delay. She first said that she was unwell and then that her father was entering a land deal and that she needed to sign some papers in connection with it. She noted that the slow-moving legal system in Mexico meant that she would have to stay for at least a month.
	The plan was that Mrs Hunt and Lydia would accompany Mrs Hunt’s parents to the UK in August, where they intended to spend a holiday, but on 16 August 2008, at 1 o’clock in the morning, Mr Hunt received a call from his wife to inform him that they would not be coming and that she did not intend to return at all but instead planned to remain in Mexico with Lydia. To date, Lydia remains in Mexico with Mrs Hunt. Their whereabouts are officially unknown. An arrest warrant for Mrs Hunt was applied for some time ago and finally confirmed in July this year after numerous appeals and delays, but it has not been acted on. When asked for a reason, the Mexican authorities say that they are still investigating.
	Mexico is a signatory to The Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction of 1980. This requires the determination of abduction cases involving minors within six weeks from the date of commencement of proceedings. I want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister, who is in his place on the Government Front Bench, for the personal interest that he has taken in the case. He has raised it on a number of occasions with his Mexican counterpart, and I know that the Foreign Secretary also discussed Lydia’s abduction with the Mexican Foreign Minister on a recent visit to the UK. I am very grateful for those interventions, but Lydia has not been returned and Mexico has still not met its legal obligations. This evening, I should like to press the Minister on the further specific actions that the UK Government can take to secure her return.
	I am keen to underline two points: first, the length of time it has taken for Mr Hunt’s case to be dealt with—three years and counting; and, secondly, the wider issue of the non-compliance of a signatory to an international treaty. On the first point, let me set out a little more detail on the case.
	Under The Hague convention, when a child has been removed abroad from its habitual residence, they have first to be returned to the country of habitual residence for the courts in that country to start determining custody. That is the basis on which the convention works. Three days after Mr Hunt’s wife made her bombshell telephone call announcing that she was not coming back—that is, on 19 August 2008—Mr Hunt filed a
	convention request for the Mexican authorities to return Lydia. Before that date, Mr Hunt knew nothing at all about The Hague convention, which requires that such requests be complied with within six weeks—that is, in this case, by the end of September 2008. In fact, more than three years later, it has still not been complied with.
	Lydia was made a ward of the High Court in London in January 2009, so any major decision about her has to be made by the High Court. After a delay of almost a year, the Mexican court issued a return order for Lydia in December 2009 with immediate effect, and that judgment correctly followed the terms of The Hague convention.
	In the following March—that is, March last year— Mr Hunt’s wife filed for an amparo, a Mexican legal procedure that is intended, I understand, to protect the constitutional rights of a Mexican citizen. It appears in practice—at least in this case—to give almost unlimited scope for frustrating the execution of international law. As a result of the amparo, The Hague order and the arrest warrant for Mrs Hunt were both suspended.
	In May this year, an amparo hearing was held. The judge ordered that the original notice was not executed according to local domestic law, and that the entire process should start again. Mr Hunt was advised at the time by his very experienced lawyers in Mexico that that conclusion was wrong. It certainly was not consistent with international law, and his advisers pointed out that the judge, in his ruling, did not refer at all to The Hague convention and overlooked several aspects of amparo legislation as well.
	On 11 August this year, Mr Hunt’s lawyers submitted an appeal to the federal court. The appeal panel of three federal judges in San Luis Potosi upheld Mrs Hunt’s amparo on 11 November on the grounds that she was not notified of the return order made by the first family judge under the terms of The Hague convention 1980. Of course, she was in fact well aware of the order: she had been engaged in challenging the initial judgement, and she would not have been in a position to do so if she had been unaware of the order.
	Mr Hunt has now been told that a new Hague hearing will be scheduled for 26 March next year in San Luis Potosi. He is understandably worried that, although a date has been set, there is nothing to stop his wife from once again embarking on a series of amparos and appeals, as the previous three years of litigation have been rendered null and void by the court’s decision. If legal proceedings were to stall again, there would be an argument that Lydia was by now settled in Mexico and any enforced return would be detrimental to her welfare.
	It may be appropriate that the amparo process gives rise to limited delays, but in this case the process has continued for more than three years, and it is now set to last even longer, even though it clearly makes a nonsense of Mexico’s obligations under The Hague convention.

Jeremy Corbyn: As chair of the all-party Mexico group, I am pleased to support what my right hon. Friend is doing and compliment him on the huge amount of work that he has done—and, indeed, the Foreign Office on the pressure that it has applied in the case of the Mexican Government. He and I are due to meet the ambassador in January, when we will obviously press the ambassador to insist that Mexico adhere to all its obligations under The Hague convention.
	My right hon. Friend is making a most serious point—that a further delay in the amparo at San Luis Potosi in March will mean that it could be argued that this child is a normal resident of Mexico. That is the danger. This is, bluntly, a case of abduction. We look to our friends in the Mexican Government and Mexican judiciary to adhere to international conventions and law and to allow this child to be returned to this country. She is, after all, a British national.

Stephen Timms: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for the support that he has given in this case. I very much look forward to the meeting with the ambassador in January. The fact that that meeting has been put in the diary is in no small part thanks to my hon. Friend’s intervention. He is absolutely right, of course.
	The heart of this debate is Lydia’s welfare and well-being. She was two when she was abducted. I have no idea what she has been told about the whereabouts of her father or about what became of her former home in the UK. She has had no contact at all with her father for more than three years. There has been no effort to enable her to meet, or even to speak, to her father throughout the whole of that period. The preamble to The Hague convention states that signatories should be
	“firmly convinced that the interests of children are of paramount importance in matters relating to their custody desiring to protect children internationally from the harmful effects of their wrongful removal or retention and to establish procedures to ensure their prompt return to the State of their habitual residence as well as to secure protection for rights of access”.
	Signatories to the convention are required to consider the interests and the welfare of an abducted child as being of paramount importance. That has clearly not happened in this particular case.
	One consolation to my constituent would have been if a welfare check ordered by the British Embassy had been carried out. That check has not been carried out because of a number of difficulties in trying to do so, and despite an intervention on the part of Bob Geldof. My constituent has not only not had the chance to see or to speak to Lydia in the past three years, but has not even been able to establish whether she is safe and well.
	Mr Hunt’s hopes were raised when his wife failed to “ampere” a criminal charge, which meant that an arrest warrant could finally be executed. That would have allowed the police to locate her and require her, by the terms of bail, to give an address where she lives with her daughter. Unfortunately, the warrant has still not been executed. The whereabouts in Mexico of Mrs Hunt’s family are known to the police. The family well knows where she and Lydia are; and the police could, if they chose, quite readily find out from the family where she and Lydia are. It seems highly unlikely that they do not know where she is, but the warrant, for whatever reason, has not been implemented.
	Obviously, the British Government cannot interfere directly with the legal processes of another country. However, the fact is that despite Mexico’s having signed The Hague convention, Lydia has yet to be returned. The website of The Hague Conference on Private International Law describes the convention as
	“a multilateral treaty, which seeks to protect children from the harmful effects of abduction and retention across international boundaries by providing a procedure to bring about their prompt return”.
	The convention has clearly been flouted in this particular case. Many abduction cases are resolved promptly, but some cases, such as this one, are held up because countries refuse to comply with the terms of The Hague convention, even though, like Mexico, they have signed it. A flagrantly non-compliant country can still press other treaty partners to fulfil their obligations and return children who have been abducted from their own country.
	A disappointing aspect of my involvement in this case is that it has not yet been possible for me to meet the Mexican ambassador. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) for his intervention. I am pleased, as he said, that we now have an appointment with the ambassador in January.
	Child abduction is becoming more common. Reunite International child abduction centre, which has been working with Mr Hunt over the past three years, tells me that until September this year, the number of abduction cases reported to its advice line was up by 46% compared with the same period last year. The number of prevention cases went up by 35% in the same period. The problem of non-compliance will be suffered by many other parents in the future—parents who, like Mr Hunt, have had their children abducted to countries that signed The Hague convention only to find it time-consuming and expensive to pursue a return, as has Mr Hunt. My constituent has so far spent more than £80,000, mainly in legal costs, in attempting to secure his daughter’s safe return. It could well be that he will have to find a similar sum again, given that it appears that we are back at square one as a result of the most recent court decision.
	I noted recently that a Republican Congressman in the United States, Chris Smith, the long-serving representative for Robbinsville, New Jersey, has sponsored a Bill on this topic. The International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Bill proposes the establishment of an office on international child abduction, which would report regularly on progress in individual cases and on the compliance of countries with their obligations under The Hague convention. The Bill would vest powers in the President, allowing him to impose specific sanctions to increase pressure to end cases of non-co-operation. Perhaps we should consider something similar in the UK. That initiative in the United States Congress underlines that, as a signatory to The Hague convention, the UK is not alone in struggling to ensure that non-compliant nations meet their treaty obligations.
	I will finally pose three questions to the Minister. First, what assistance can the British embassy provide to the Mexican authorities in their search for Mrs Hunt? I know that a letter was sent by the attorney-general in San Luis Potosi to the attorney-general in Mexico City asking that he instruct the police, who are under his jurisdiction, to locate Mrs Hunt and arrest her. That would, in turn, allow the British embassy to conduct the long-awaited welfare check on Lydia. Mrs Hunt must be obliged to give recognised contact details, which would enable the process of returning Lydia under the terms of The Hague convention to get under way.
	Secondly, can the Minister assure me that he will continue to raise this case with the Mexican authorities, as he has on a number of occasions, and to impress on them the importance of meeting the obligations that they have signed up to under The Hague convention, which they are not currently fulfilling? I was pleased to
	learn that Lord Justice Thorpe, who leads on these matters for the UK judiciary, has offered his assistance to the Mexican authorities in complying with their obligations under The Hague convention, and that he plans to raise this case in The Hague next month at a meeting convened for the purpose.
	Finally, what steps can be taken against countries, such as Mexico, that are non-compliant in this way? It is clearly not right for a treaty partner not to fulfil its obligations as set out in an international treaty that it has signed freely, and which it will be able to take advantage of when it wishes to do so. What recourse is available when a signatory to an international treaty—this one or others—does not fulfil its obligations under that treaty? What specific action can the UK Government take to address Mexico’s non-compliance in this particular case?

Jeremy Browne: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the final debate of 2011, Mr Speaker. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) on securing it, and I hope that my response will satisfy him on at least some of the questions he asked. He has pursued the case extremely diligently over an extended period, and of course he is always welcome to get in contact with the Foreign Office. I am very pleased that he and the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) have secured a meeting with the Mexican ambassador next month.
	I am grateful to the right hon. Member for East Ham for raising the case of Lydia Hunt, who, as he said, was abducted by her mother and taken to Mexico in 2008. He has provided considerable support to Mr Hunt, and I appreciate his efforts to achieve progress for Mr Hunt in such difficult circumstances. As he is aware, I have personally followed Mr Hunt’s case with considerable interest and have every sympathy with him in his sad and difficult situation.
	Before I comment specifically on the case of Lydia Hunt, I should like to provide a brief background to the wider issue of international parental child abduction. Unfortunately, there has been a considerable rise in reported cases over the past few years. The figure I have is that last year alone the Foreign Office’s child abduction section dealt with 643 active cases and saw a 10% increase in new cases on the previous year. I sympathise greatly with parents who face difficulties in working through unfamiliar systems, cultures and languages.
	The British Government therefore strongly encourage other countries to sign The Hague convention. We regularly lobby on the issue at ministerial level and consider the convention to be the most effective route to return children abducted from their usual place of residence. In general, cases of child abduction are more likely to be resolved promptly when they occur between countries that operate the convention.
	I can understand the immense frustration and distress that Mr Hunt must feel at still having no resolution to his case, despite his having submitted a Hague convention application for Lydia’s return in 2008. That might seem inconsistent with Mexico’s signing an agreed international framework for the prompt return of abducted children,
	but it is worth bringing to the House’s attention the fact that The Hague convention provides for a country to operate it within the guidelines of its own domestic legislation. How the convention is applied varies from country to country, and in Mexico it is not uncommon for the legal process to be lengthy, perhaps lengthier even than we are used to here in Britain.
	I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his acknowledgment that as Mexico is a sovereign state the British Government cannot interfere in its legal system, just as we would not expect the Mexican authorities to interfere in courts in this country.

Jeremy Corbyn: Mexico is obviously a signatory to The Hague convention, and it is up to the federal Government of Mexico to adhere to it. From the points that the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) have made, it appears that the Government are hiding behind the state laws in San Luis Potosi as a way of avoiding implementing the arrest warrant, which is what the convention requires of Mexico.

Jeremy Browne: We expect signatories to The Hague convention to operate within it, but we accept that it permits a degree of flexibility because different countries apply the law in different ways. That does not exempt them from their obligations, and we continue to make that point to the Mexican authorities.
	In answer to one of the right hon. Member for East Ham’s questions, I can tell him that the British Government participate fully in meetings to review and enhance the operation of the 1980 Hague convention organised by The Hague conference on private international law. I am pleased that he is in contact with my noble Friend Lord McNally, the Minister of State for Justice, who takes a direct interest in the process.
	I turn to the specific case before us. I was very saddened to hear that Mr Hunt did not secure the result that he was hoping for when Lydia’s mother’s amparo was upheld in November. I was, however, pleased to hear that he has been given a date for a new Hague hearing in March 2012. I know that he will have concerns about the process, given the lengthy proceedings that he has already faced, so I encourage him to work with his lawyer to mitigate those concerns through the appropriate channels.
	As well as the legal process, Mr Hunt is anxious for news of his daughter’s well-being. I can only imagine his worry and frustration at having no contact with Lydia for so long. This aspect of the case has been a priority for the FCO. We would like to be able to reassure Mr Hunt by conducting a consular visit to check on Lydia’s well-being, but, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, we require the permission of Lydia’s mother to do so. We have persistently and regularly requested consular access to Lydia, but to date we have not received her mother’s permission. The UK Government have no enforcement powers in Mexico to force Lydia’s mother to allow us to see Lydia. Further, as we all sadly know, we do not yet have any indication of Lydia’s whereabouts. We will of course act on any new information related to Lydia’s whereabouts to continue to seek consular access to her, and this may be a point that the right hon. Gentleman could raise with the Mexican ambassador directly when he meets him next month.
	We have discussed with Mr Hunt the arrest warrant for Lydia’s mother. I share his hope that the execution of the warrant will subsequently assist with locating Lydia. Our consular staff will continue to request updates from the Mexican authorities on the progress of this aspect of the case. Beyond this, we cannot involve ourselves in criminal proceedings and cannot assist in the search for Lydia’s mother, which is the responsibility of the Mexican authorities.
	I am grateful for this opportunity to reassure Mr Hunt that we have done and will continue to do all that we can to support him and his daughter. We very much hope our extensive efforts will contribute to a positive outcome for him, but we are limited in the scope of our powers as we are operating in the jurisdiction of another sovereign country. We have provided Mr Hunt with consular assistance at every possible juncture and in every way we properly can, in line with our consular policy. The Mexican authorities are acutely aware of the case and I am satisfied that they are handling it in line with their judicial process. I am also confident that they will inform us as soon as they have any news. Britain has a strong bilateral relationship with Mexico and I hope that relationship will have a positive influence on the outcome of this case. It would be harder if we were dealing with a country with which Britain has difficult diplomatic relationships, but it is hard enough as it is, with a friendly country.
	We have worked closely with the Mexican authorities successfully to return children to the UK this year under the convention. I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude for the way the Mexican authorities have acted swiftly upon the conclusion of the judicial process to resolve such complicated cases with a great deal of sensitivity and professionalism, and my hope is that the same will apply in this case.
	Mr Hunt’s case, however, remains unresolved. I recognise the distress he must be feeling after more than three years of separation from his daughter. I hope it is clear that we continue to treat Mr Hunt’s case as a priority and are working to get a resolution. I have met the right hon. Gentleman and Mr Hunt to discuss the case, and I have spoken to or written to the Mexican Foreign Minister, Deputy Foreign Minister or Federal Attorney General about Mr Hunt’s case on eight separate occasions since July 2010. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware,
	the Foreign Secretary also raised it directly with his Mexican counterpart in June this year. Furthermore, our consular officials and ambassador continue to do all they can to raise Mr Hunt’s case with their Mexican counterparts. It was apparent during my visit to Mexico in October this year that our representations have ensured a high level of awareness of Mr Hunt’s case and our concerns. When I raised the case with Ministers, they were aware of it just on the basis of Mr Hunt’s name, even before I had the chance to go into any details.
	Our efforts have not yet helped to produce the resolution Mr Hunt is looking for, but we will of course continue to raise his case where possible and appropriate. However, we should only do so if it is likely to help to resolve Mr Hunt’s case. I am therefore keen for us to remain in close contact with Mr Hunt’s lawyer and be guided by her on when any efforts by our consular staff and ambassador to engage with the Mexican authorities would be most effective for the case. Our ambition is a successful resolution; we have no other ambitions beyond that in this case.
	In closing, I would like to thank the right hon. Gentleman again for raising this difficult case and to recognise the diligence with which he has pursued it on behalf of his constituent. I can assure him that we will continue to do all that we properly can to support Mr Hunt. However, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that, in essence, this is a legal matter in Mexico, although I sincerely hope that Mr Hunt receives some positive news soon. Being out of contact with one’s child must cause unimaginable stress. I strongly support Mr Hunt in his case and in any legitimate course of action that he feels will help him to be reunited with his daughter.
	On that note—that sad note, I am afraid—let me say that it is a privilege for me to finish the proceedings in the House of Commons this year. I wish you, Mr Speaker, and all your staff a happy Christmas.

Mr Speaker: Those good wishes are reciprocated, and I thank the Minister of State.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.